Manny Rodriguez
New Member
Have you checked the Ben Chayim Hebrew text and the several editions of the TR that were extant during the KJV translators time to verify that these things are so?franklinmonroe said:
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Word-For-Word?
- Thread starter Rippon
- Start date
franklinmonroe
Active Member
To the best of my ability I have checked most of the Greek. I am not at all familiar with Hebrew enough to personally confirm it, even if I had access to the necessary documents. Nonetheless, the information is widely available from multiple sources I consider credible. We all must place some amount of trust in scholars. My only agenda is seeking the truth. If you can show evidence to the contrary, I would gladly receive it.Manny Rodriguez said:
Last edited by a moderator:
It's a demerit that he's never done translating himself. All my other books are by actual Bible translators. There are some things you never quite figure out until you've tried it yourself.Logos1560 said:
Marcia
Active Member
John of Japan said:
John of Japan, I am wondering since you have experience in this area if you have heard of or read Objectivity in Biblical Interpretation by Thomas Howe?
He's a professor at my seminary who teaches Hebrew, Greek, Old Testament, and Hermeneutics. He's a wonderful professor and I have learned gobs of stuff from him! I have taken OT 1 and 2, Hermeneutics, and Overview of Biblical Languages from him. He made Hermeneutics exciting!
Manny Rodriguez
New Member
True but keep in mind that Dr. Williams has a close relationship with several Bible translators. His expertise in Greek and Hebrew warrants him an audience in these matters. And also keep in mind that this book is a collection of thoughts from several men who are experienced Bible translators as well as others who have served as consultants and aids to Bible translators. Some sections and chapters in the book are authored by them. I doubt any of us would agree with every item in his book (I am not in total agreement with everything in the book but then I am not in total agreement with anyone), but I believe overall if you would check the book out you would not be disappointed. Like I said, many people who have felt the call (if you will) to translate God's word don't know where to look for council in this area. This book serves as a guide for such brethren.John of Japan said:
Last edited by a moderator:
Nope, don't have that book. Sounds like you have a wonderful prof, though! :wavey:Marcia said:
Okay, well I do plan to order the book and hopefully learn from it.Manny Rodriguez said:
If Dr. Williams has reached expertise in Hebrew and Greek on his own, without formal training, then I'm impressed. That is an extremely difficult task.
Manny Rodriguez said:
The KJV kept much of its language from the 1500's English Bibles.
Do you claim that the fact that the KJV translators changed a number of "archaic" words in the pre-1611 English Bibles took away from the integrity of those earlier good Bibles?
Would you claim that the changing of the archaic form "fet" used in the 1611 edition of the KJV by later editors of the KJV took away from the integrity of a literary masterpiece?
Manny Rodriguez said:
The 1540 Great Bible and the 1568 Bishops' Bible had the added words "unto salvation" at 1 Peter 2:2. These were two of the earlier pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV was a revision and they are placed on the KJV-only view's line or stream of good Bibles.
According to the first rule given the KJV translators, the 1611 KJV was officially a revision of the Bishops' Bible. The Bishops' Bible was the source of some of the added words in the KJV.
The Bishops’ Bible added the words “in companies” at Genesis 14:15. It added: “shall he bear out“ (Lev. 4:11), “of the altar“ (Num. 18:9), “Ye shall number the people“ (Num. 26:4), “That is to wit“ (Num. 31:43), and “as upon an horse“ (Deut. 32:26) Some other example additions include the following: “otherwise called“ (Jud. 8:35), “so shall my house be, but not“ (2 Sam. 23:4), “as namely” (1 Kings 6:29), “that is to wit” (1 Kings 9:10), “offence which Solomon hath committed“ (1 Kings 11:39), “with your cry” (1 Kings 18:27), “that came in his way” (1 Kings 20:20), “in the ceremonies“ (2 Kings 17:8), “I beseech thee” (2 Kings 19:16), “O thou king of Assyria“ (2 Kings 19:21), “even so deal with me“ (2 Chron. 2:3), and “shall this building be“ (2 Chron. 2:6). At the end of Job 9:24, it added: “that can shew the contrary.“ It added “to God” at Job 35:14. In the middle of Psalm 139:20, this addition is found: “thou art O God.“ At the end of Isaiah 1:7, it added: “in the time of war.“ After the word “replenish” at Isaiah 2:6, it added “with evils,“ and it added “the wicked ones of” before “the earth” at the end of Isaiah 2:19 and 2:21. In the middle of Isaiah 3:14, this addition is found: “and shall say to them.“ These words are found in a different size type at the end of Isaiah 3:18: “after the fashion of the moon.“ In the middle of Isaiah 8:19, these additional words are found: “then make them this answer.“ At the beginning of Jeremiah 4:22, it added: “Nevertheless, this shall come upon them.“ At Jeremiah 28:9, it has this addition: “if God hath sent them in very deed.“ It added “when ye had gotten the victory” at the end of Jeremiah 50:11. At the end of Jeremiah 50:28, it added “yea, a voice of them that cry against Babylon.“ At Ezekiel 28:14, it added this phrase: “in this dignity.“ The words “their sacrifices” were added at the end of Ezekiel 40:41. At Ezekiel 45:2, the Bishops’ Bible has the following two additions in a different size type: “in length” and “in breadth.” This chapter has another addition [“a portion shall be” (45:7)]. At the beginning of Daniel 7:20, six words were added [“I desired …to know the truth”]. After “Loruhamah” in Hosea 1:6, it added: “that is, not obtaining mercy.“ Likewise, it added after “Loammi” in Hosea 1:9: “that is, not my people.“ More Old Testament examples could be given.
More such examples of additions are also found in its New Testament. At John 18:22, the Bishops' Bible has the rendering "smote Jesus with a rod." The Bishops’ Bible inserted “the fishers” at Matthew 13:48. At Matthew 26:30, the Bishops’ began as follows: "when they had praised God." After “preparing” at John 19:31, it inserted “of the Sabboth.“ It added "of the synagogue" in italics or a different size type at Matthew 9:18, "of God" at Matthew 26:64, "of the gospel" at Mark 2:2, “from the region which is“ at Mark 3:8, “And said“ at Mark 10:7, “of God“ at Mark 14:62, “of the city“ at Mark 15:43, “of their sins” at Luke 10:13, “at the doors“ at Luke 14:35, “and no man gave unto him“ at Luke 16:21, “the means“ at John 5:16, “the means“ at John 6:57, “as though he heard them not” at John 8:6, “on high“ at John 8:28, “unto you“ at John 16:15, “any question“ at John 16:30, “unto them“ at Acts 2:41, “unto him“ at Acts 8:37, “one Scripture with another“ at Acts 9:22, “that is“ at Acts 15:22, “that is to say“ at Acts 15:29, “of the Lord“ at Acts 19:9, “that is to say“ at Acts 28:25, “the inheritance given“ at Romans 4:16, “election“ at Romans 9:16, “I mean“ at Romans 9:24, “nations“ at Romans 11:32, “not only before God, but also“ at Romans 12:17, "I did not mean" at 1 Corinthians 5:10, and “the shedding of“ at Hebrews 12:4. At the end of 1 Corinthians 9:25, it added “to obtain” before “an incorruptible” and “crown” after it. At the end of Revelation 9:11, it added “that is to say, a destroyer.“
Manny Rodriguez
New Member
The finalizing of the KJV was a work in progress between 1611 and 1769. The language was still in development especially in terms of orthography. Those who revised some of the "archaic" English in the 17 and 18th centuries were living contemporary to the literary English that they were dealing with. Therefore the integrity of the text was not evilly effected by those who understood that literary English and were simply trying to purify and finalize the text. English speakers today are not living contemporary to the literary English that was used in the King James text. So for today's English speaker to try and mix a strictly literary language of the 17th and 18th centuries with 20th and 21st century updates would be to compromise the integrity of this unique text that God gave the English-speaking world.Logos1560 said:
You forgot to mention that the words 'unto salvation' were in brackets and italics in those pre-1611 English Bibles. The brackets and italics manifest the translator’s doubts as to the genuineness of these words.Logos1560 said:
The Bishops' and Great Bibles were texts in transition. I understand that the KJV is mostly a revision of the Bishop's Bible with a high reliance on Tyndales version as well as consideration of the others such as the Great Bible, the Geneva, Coverdale, etc. I believe that questionable renderings such as 'unto salvation' in I Pet. 2:2 are the very reasons why God raised 54 of Europe's greatest team of linguistic scholars ever to assemble for the sake of a Bible translation. The esteemed translators of the pre-1611 English Bibles did not have the luxury of the protection and authorization of the King (save the Bishop's Bible which was done at the order of the queen of England), nor did they have free access to whatever materials were needed or desired for the work of collation and comparison. The scholarship behind the pre-1611 English translations, though noble, were extremely limited due much to the persecution they suffered during their work. The scholarship behind the KJV was unequaled in its time, and I dare say there has ever been an assembly of qualified linguists that could match that of the collective learning of the 54 KJV translators.
To me it is obvious that the Bibles such as the Bishops and Great Bibles were good but not good enough. They had occasional flaws in them such as the interpolation in I Pet. 2:2. The KJV translators had to come to a collective agreement as to renderings in their text. The conclusions they drew were based upon the most thorough, varied, and widely assorted amount of manuscript evidence ever accessed up to that time. Considering this collective scholarship that produced the KJV, I will go with the 54 KJV translators' collective decision to not include 'unto salvation' as opposed to the limited scholarship of the noble men behind the pre-1611 English Bibles and the psuedo-scholarship of the men behind the modern versions today.
Besides, this rendering goes against the clear teaching in scripture (Acts 8:36-37, Acts 16:31, Rom. 10:10-13) that salvation is instantaneous and not through some type of progression of growth (that ye may grow thereby unto salvation) as the Roman Catholic church teaches through their sacerdotal system.
Last edited by a moderator:
franklinmonroe
Active Member
Manny, I appreciate your complete answers and your Christian attitude.
Manny Rodriguez
New Member
Thank you for the compliment brother.franklinmonroe said:
Manny Rodriguez said:
Good.At least you don't regard the 1611 as a miracle as some do.
___________________________________________________________________________
Those who revised some of the "archaic" English in the 17 and 18th centuries were living contemporary to the literary English that they were dealing with.
[/quote]
That sounds like a good assignment. I'd like to see the English style of the 18th century and compare it with the 1769.The 1769 is the Blayney Version of course, which most KJV'ers use today.
_____________________________________________________________________________
You forgot to mention that the words 'unto salvation' were in brackets and italics in those pre-1611 English Bibles. The brackets and italics manifest the translator’s doubts as to the genuineness of these words.
[/quote]
Generally,weren't those brackets and italics for the purpose of just filling in words to make the sentence make sense?
__________________________________________________________________________
The Bishops' and Great Bibles were texts in transition. I understand that the KJV is mostly a revision of the Bishop's Bible with a high reliance on Tyndales version as well as consideration of the others such as the Great Bible, the Geneva, Coverdale, etc. I believe that questionable renderings such as 'unto salvation' in I Pet. 2:2 are the very reasons why God raised 54 of Europe's greatest team of linguistic scholars ever to assemble for the sake of a Bible translation.
[/quote]
Is it established fact that the 54 men were the "greatest team of linguistic scholars ever to assemble for the sake of a Bible translation." ? I seem to recall that most were better at Latin than the original languages.
_________________________________________________________________________
The esteemed translators of the pre-1611 English Bibles did not have the luxury of the protection and authorization of the King (save the Bishop's Bible which was done at the order of the queen of England), nor did they have free access to whatever materials were needed or desired for the work of collation and comparison. The scholarship behind the pre-1611 English translations, though noble, were extremely limited due much to the persecution they suffered during their work. The scholarship behind the KJV was unequaled in its time, and I dare say there has ever been an assembly of qualified linguists that could match that of the collective learning of the 54 KJV translators.
[/quote]
I don't know about that.William Tyndale did rather well in his one-man translation which the 1611 team were heavily dependent upon.I have threads in which I contend that for the most part his wordings are easier to understand and even more modern sounding that the "eloquence" of the KJV.The KJV team added a lot of ruffles and flourishes to Tyndale's text.In Tyndale day his New Testament translation was in the vernacular of the people.But in the Royal Version it was not.
____________________________________________________________________________
To me it is obvious that the Bibles such as the Bishops and Great Bibles were good but not good enough. They had occasional flaws in them such as the interpolation in I Pet. 2:2. The KJV translators had to come to a collective agreement as to renderings in their text. The conclusions they drew were based upon the most thorough, varied, and widely assorted amount of manuscript evidence ever accessed up to that time.
[/quote]
"Up to that time". Today we have considerably more manuscript evidence than they were privy to way back then.The KJV team did not reach a definitive conclusion binding on us today.
_____________________________________________________________________________
... the psuedo-scholarship of the men behind the modern versions today.
[/quote]
That is silly in the extreme for you to say. I will expect your apology in the morning acknowledging the superior scholarship behind most of the MV's.The translators can be contacted privately.
Last edited by a moderator:
Hi Manny, I also hold to the traditional texts.Manny Rodriguez said:
In the case of 1 Peter 2:2 even using the "non" traditional text there can be the following translation:
NIV 1 Peter 2:2 Like newborn babies, crave pure spiritual milk, so that by it you may grow up in your salvation
NAS 1 Peter 2:2 like newborn babes, long for the pure milk of the word, that by it you may grow in respect to salvation,
There are those who hold to the Alexandrian type texts who would say that the TR scribes in this place dropped the words eis soterian.
In other words the same accusation is held on both sides - "the other side added or deleted the word(s)".
In other words the same accusation is held on both sides - "the other side added or deleted the word(s)".
HankD
Manny Rodriguez said:
Are you implying that scholars today cannot understand "that literary English" enough to update it and yet that average readers today are supposed to be able clearly and perfectly to understand it?
It seems that it is being suggested that readers today are supposed to update the archaic "literary English" perfectly in their minds but that they are never supposed to be put those updated meanings and words on paper where they can be seen.
Manny Rodriguez said:
Is the fact that today's English reader would have to try to update that "literary language" in their minds to be able to understand it mean that today's English reader is then compromising the integrity of that text with his mental 21st century updating?
Is it scriptural and consistent to seem to suggest that God directly gave the "unique text" of the KJV in some way different than God could be said to give the pre-1611 English Bibles, English Bibles in the 1700's and 1800's such as Wesley's 1755 English N. T., the 1833 Webster's Bible, the 1842 revision of the KJV, etc, and English translations from the same underlying original language texts today?
By the way, the claimed "literary language" of the KJV could be updated in many places with the "literary language" of the 1500's used in the pre-1611 English Bibles. In effect, those 1500's English Bibles sometimes had more up-to-date language than the KJV does.
Gen. 1:28 fill (Tyndale’s, Coverdale’s, Geneva) replenish (Bishops’, KJV)
Gen. 9:1 fill (Tyndale’s, Coverdale’s, Matthew‘s) replenish (Bishops’, KJV)
Gen. 9:13 sign (Geneva) token (Bishops’, KJV)
Gen. 11:4 Come (Coverdale’s) Go to (Bishops’, KJV)
Gen. 11:28 where he was born (Coverdale’s, Matthew‘s) of his nativity (Bishops’, KJV)
Gen. 14:3 valley (Coverdale’s) vale (Bishops’, KJV)
Gen. 16:6 dealt roughly (Geneva) dealt hardly (Bishops’, KJV)
Gen. 19:29 wherein (Geneva) in one of the which (Bishops’) in the which (KJV)
Gen. 21:26 know (Geneva) wot (Bishops’, KJV)
Gen. 22:1 prove (Geneva) tempt (Bishops’, KJV)
Gen. 24:5 What if (Geneva) peradventure (Bishops’, KJV)
Gen. 24:21 till he knew (Coverdale’s) to know (1599 Geneva) to wit (Bishops’, KJV)
Gen. 24:55 maid (Geneva) damsel (Bishops’, KJV)
Gen. 24:57 ask her consent (Geneva) inquire at her mouth (Bishops’, KJV)
Gen. 24:63 toward the evening (Geneva) at the eventide (Bishops’, KJV)
Gen. 24:64 lighted down from the camel (Geneva) lighted off the camel (Bishops’, KJV)
Gen. 25:7 seventy and five (Geneva) threescore and fifteen (Bishops’, KJV)
Gen. 29:14 a month long (Coverdale’s) space of a month (Bishops’, KJV)
Gen. 31:29 yesterday (Coverdale’s) yesternight (Bishops’, KJV)
Gen. 31:42 yesterday (Coverdale’s) yesternight (Bishops’, KJV)
Gen. 34:22 to (Coverdale’s) for to (Bishops’, KJV)
Gen. 37:14 valley (Coverdale’s) vale (Bishops’, KJV)
Gen. 37:22 deliver (Geneva) rid (Bishops’, KJV)
Gen. 39:8 knoweth (Geneva) wotteth (Bishops’, KJV)
Gen. 40:4 prison (Coverdale’s) ward (Bishops’, KJV)
Gen. 41:5 full (Coverdale’s) rank (Bishops’, KJV)
Gen. 41:36 provision (Geneva) store (Bishops’, KJV)
Gen. 41:54 famine (Geneva) dearth (Bishops’, KJV)
Gen. 42:25 wheat (Geneva) corn (Bishops’, KJV)
Gen. 44:15 Know (Geneva) Wot (Bishops’, KJV)
Gen. 45:6 plowing (Coverdale’s) earing (Bishops’, KJV)
Gen. 46:15 These are (Coverdale’s) These be (Bishops’, KJV)
Gen. 46:27 seventy (Geneva) threescore and ten (Bishops’, KJV)
Gen. 50:3 seventy (Geneva) threescore and ten (Bishops’, KJV)
Gen. 50:15 It may be (Geneva) peradventure (Bishops’, KJV)
Exod. 3:22 ask (Geneva) borrow (Bishops’, KJV)
Exod. 5:4 your labour (Tyndale’s, Coverdale’s) your burdens (Bishops’, KJV)
Exod. 5:8 they are idle (Coverdale’s) they be idle (Bishops’, KJV)
Exod. 5:18 number of brick (Coverdale’s) tale of brick (Bishops’) tale of bricks (KJV)
Exod. 5:19 diminish (Geneva) minish (Bishops’, KJV)
Exod. 6:6 deliver (Geneva) rid (Bishops’, KJV)
Exod. 9:9 blisters (Geneva) blains (Bishops’, KJV)
Exod. 9:10 blisters (Geneva) blains (Bishops’, KJV)
Exod. 10:19 quarters of Egypt (Coverdale’s) coasts of Egypt (Bishops’, KJV)
Exod. 13:12 womb (Geneva) matrix (Bishops’, KJV)
Exod. 13:15 womb (Geneva) matrix (Bishops’, KJV)
Exod. 13:17 Lest (Geneva) Lest peradventure (Bishops’, KJV)
Exod. 13:18 armed (Geneva) harnessed (Bishops’, KJV)
Exod. 15:27 seventy (Geneva) threescore and ten (Bishops’, KJV)
Exod. 16:18 measure (Geneva) mete (Bishops’, KJV)
Exod. 29:2 fine wheat flour (Geneva) wheaten flour (Bishops’, KJV)
Exod. 29:40 tenth part (Geneva) tenth deal (Bishops’, KJV)
Exod. 32:1 know (Geneva) wot (Bishops’, KJV)
Exod. 32:19 near (Geneva) nigh (Bishops’, KJV)
Exod. 32:23 know (Geneva) wot (Bishops’, KJV)
Exod. 34:19 womb (Geneva) matrix (Bishops’, KJV)
Exod. 34:21 plowing (Coverdale’s) earing (Bishops’, KJV)
Exod. 37:9 toward the mercyseat (Geneva) to the mercy seatward (Bishops’, KJV)
Exod. 38:25 seventy and five (Geneva) threescore and fifteen (Bishops’, KJV)
Lev. 4:26 for (Coverdale’s) concerning (Geneva) as concerning (Bishops’, KJV)
Lev. 5:17 know (Geneva) wist (Bishops’, KJV)
Lev. 10:14 they are (Geneva) they be (Bishops’, KJV)
Lev. 12:8 turtle doves (Coverdale’s) turtles (Bishops’, KJV)
Lev. 15:29 turtle doves (Coverdale’s) turtles (Bishops’, KJV)
Lev. 19:32 gray head (Coverdale’s) hoary head (Bishops’, KJV)
Lev. 19:35 line (Geneva) meteyard (Bishops’, KJV)
Lev. 21:3 near (Geneva) nigh (Bishops’, KJV)
Lev. 23:5 evening (Geneva) even (Bishops’, KJV)
Lev. 26:16 fevers (Coverdale’s) ague (Bishops’, KJV)
Num. 2:4 seventy and four (Geneva) threescore and fourteen (Bishops’, KJV)
Num. 3:43 seventy and three (Geneva) threescore and thirteen (Bishops’, KJV)
Num. 3:46 seventy and three (Geneva) threescore and thirteen (Bishops’, KJV)
Num. 6:3 no sour wine (Geneva) no vinegar of wine (Bishops’, KJV)
Num. 6:10 turtle doves (Coverdale’s) turtles (Bishops’, KJV)
Num. 22:6 know (Geneva) wot (Bishops’, KJV)
Num. 24:14 will shew (Coverdale’s) will advertise (Bishops’, KJV)
Num. 26:22 seventy and six (Geneva) threescore and sixteen (Bishops’, KJV)
Num. 31:33 seventy and two (Geneva) threescore and twelve (Bishops’, KJV)
Num. 31:37 seventy and five (Geneva) threescore and fifteen (Bishops’, KJV)
Num. 33:9 seventy (Geneva) threescore and ten (Bishops’, KJV)
Deut. 2:14 time (Coverdale’s) space (Bishops’, KJV)
Deut. 3:18 all men of war (Geneva) all that are meet for the war (Bishops, KJV)
Deut. 4:12 image (Tyndale’s, Coverdale’s) similitude (Bishops’, KJV)
Deut. 4:41 separated (Geneva) severed (Bishops’, KJV)
Deut. 10:22 seventy (Geneva) threescore and ten (Bishops’, KJV)
Deut. 22:2 near (Geneva) nigh (Bishops’, KJV)
Deut. 22:20 maid (Geneva) damsel (Bishops’, KJV)
Deut. 28:56 venture (Geneva) adventure (Bishops’, KJV)
Deut. 32:23 plagues (Geneva) mischiefs (Bishops’, KJV)
Deut. 33:22 young lion (Coverdale’s) lion’s whelp (Bishops’, KJV)
Deut. 34:6 grave (Coverdale’s) sepulchre (Bishops’, KJV)
Josh. 2:4 knew (Coverdale’s) wist (Bishops’, KJV)
Josh. 2:20 discharged (Coverdale’s) quit (Bishops’, KJV)
Josh. 2:24 are sore afraid (Coverdale’s) faint (Bishops’) do faint (KJV)
Josh. 3:15 brink (Geneva) brim (Bishops’, KJV)
Josh. 7:6 evening (Coverdale’s) eventide (Bishops’, KJV)
Josh. 8:14 knew (Geneva) wist (Bishops’, KJV)
Jud. 1:7 Seventy (Geneva) Threescore and ten (Bishops’, KJV)
Jud. 2:17 obey (Geneva) hearken unto (Bishops’, KJV)
Jud. 7:2 boast (Coverdale’s) vaunt (Bishops’, KJV)
Jud. 8:14 seventy and seven (Geneva) threescore and seventeen (Bishops’, KJV)
Jud. 8:30 seventy (Geneva) threescore and ten (Bishops’, KJV)
Jud. 9:2 in the audience of all (Geneva) in the ears of all (Bishops’, KJV)
Jud. 9:2 seventy (Geneva) threescore and ten (Bishops’, KJV)
Jud. 9:4 seventy (Geneva) threescore and ten (Bishops’, KJV)
Jud. 9:5 seventy (Geneva) threescore and ten (Bishops’, KJV)
Jud. 9:18 seventy (Geneva) threescore and ten (Bishops’, KJV)
Jud. 9:24 seventy (Geneva) threescore and ten (Bishops’, KJV)
Jud. 9:52 came nigh (Coverdale’s) went hard (Bishops’, KJV)
Jud. 9:53 brake (Geneva) all to brake (Bishops’, KJV)
Jud. 12:14 seventy (Geneva) threescore and ten (Bishops’, KJV)
Jud. 16:7 cords (Geneva) withs (Bishops’, KJV)
Jud. 16:20 knew (Geneva) wist (Bishops, KJV)
Jud. 19:3 young woman’s father (Geneva) father of the damsel (Bishops’, KJV)
Last edited by a moderator:
Manny Rodriguez
New Member
Not when they are in brackets.Rippon said:
William Tyndale did rather excellent considering the circumstances. His work was monumental and set the groundwork for all subsequent English Bibles, especially the KJV. Tyndale did most of his work on the run from the Catholic church however. Some of the Old Testament he did while severly ill in prison and without the luxury of collating other manuscripts outside of his Hebrew Bible. But even Tyndale in his writings considered his work an unfinished task (his OT was incomplete) and called for others to continue what he had started.
That's where you (and many othes on this forum) and I will highly disagree. I believe the work of the KJV translators did reach a definitive conclusion. I think it is a shame that since the KJV, the English speaking world has produced over 200 more English translations intead of trying to reach the over 3000 other languages out there that don't have 1 verse of scripture translated.
As far as any manuscript evidence that has been uncovered since the KJV translator's days, I don't believe any evidence has been discovered that can demonstrate the KJV to be an inferior Bible.
In response to your last two statements, I am copying and pasting a portion (in red) of a book I am writing:
The Greek basis for the KJV was the result of a conglomeration of the greatest scholarship behind a Bible translation this world has ever known. Some may think that this is a subjective statement. But I beg to differ. Show me any other Bible that can boast the type of scholarship that the KJV does. Consider the words of Dr. Ira M. Price, Head Professor of Semitic Languages and Literature at the University of Chicago in the early 1900s, in The Ancestry Of Our English Bible: An Account of Manuscripts, Texts, and Versions of the Bible:
“James therefore entered heartily into the preparation and execution of a plan to provide a uniform translation “by the best learned in both the Universities; after them to be reviewed by the bishops and the chief learned of the church”; to be ratified by the Privy Council, and by royal authority.”
Anyone doubting the veracity of this statement concerning the superiority of scholarship behind the work of the KJV need only to read the credentials as laid out by Alexander McClure in his book The Translators Revived or Terrance Brown of the Trinitarian Bible Society in his article The Learned Men which can be found in David Otis Fuller’s classic entitled Which Bible.
We’re talking about linguistic experts with translating experience having authored dictionaries, lexicons, sermons, translations of the scriptures, and other religious literature into many languages. We’re not talking about a few guys who just took a 3 year course in Greek and Hebrew. We’re talking about the very professors and Deans of the learning institutions themselves. These were the 54 most learned men in Europe concerning the original languages of that time. Not only were they masters of the original languages, but they were experts in many others such as Latin, Syriac, Chaldean, Arabian, Persian, French, Italian, and even Spanish.
One translator in particular, John Boys, was more than an expert. He was gifted. At the age of 5 he began studying Hebrew. By the age of 14 he was admitted in St. John’s College of Cambridge where he was known for studying in the library sometimes from 4am to 8pm. I believe the Lord was raising up these special men of God for the particular purpose of translating his word.
The so-called Greek and Hebrew “scholars” in our day and time cannot hold a candle to those of the KJV because those men didn’t just master the Hebrew and Greek by only studying those 2 languages. You do not master a language by just focusing your studies upon that one particular language. You must also master the sister languages before you can really be considered an expert. This is what the KJV translators specialized in. They were fluent in the sister languages such as Latin, Arabic, Persian, Chaldee, etc so as to grasp a fuller understanding of some of the words in Hebrew and Greek that cannot be comprehended as well in just an English-speaking mindset.
Not only must you be able to read and write these languages. You must be able to think in it. That’s a whole other level. This is why the KJV scholars and their colleagues of that time would conduct public debates in Greek, Latin, and the other languages.
Dr. Lancelot Andrews, one of the group directors, made for himself a private devotional entirely in Greek for daily use. I like what Greek and Hebrew teacher, Dr. D.A.Waite, says about this:
“Many Christians today don’t even have private daily devotions. Of those who do, how many do you know who have made up private devotions manuals? And of the people who have made up private devotions manuals, how many do you know who have written them wholly in the Greek language? This most certainly indicates a linguistic superiority.”
These modern day Bible translators and “scholars” who have only studied Greek and Hebrew in some 3 or 4 year classroom course have not even scratched the surface of understanding those original languages to the same capacity of that of the 54 KJV translators. And anyone who thinks otherwise is fooling himself.
I'd also like to add that after Greek and Hebrew, the 3rd most important and common type of manuscript evidence were the Latin manuscripts. So it was wise for the KJV translators to not just be experts in Greek and Hebrew, but Latin as well.
Last edited by a moderator:
Manny Rodriguez said:
Have you any documented evidence for saying that the Queen actually ordered the making of the Bishops' Bible?
According to what I have read, Archbishop Matthew Parker never obtained the Queen's authorization or approval for the Bishops' Bible.
Manny Rodriguez
New Member
Wesley's and Webster's translations, as noble as their intentions were I'm sure, never enjoyed any significant amount of acceptance. To me the reason for this is obvious. God had placed his stamp of approval upon the KJV and that is the text that he has borne witness to. The fact that this "archaic" Book still persists today, bearing fruit in flourishing ministries and peoples' lives, in the 21st century is a testament to its timelessness, despite it's old English.Logos1560 said:
Like I said earlier, I had no problem understanding it enough to be saved as a 10 year old little Catholic boy after a godly old black lady challenged me to read John 3 in a KJV. The old English is no problem at all.
Why must we dumb-down the wording of a Book that is supposed to be a translation of the eternal words of Almighty God for the sake of those who are complaining that it is "too hard to understand". The truth is that it is not too hard to understand to anyone who is not afraid to STUDY (a word that has almost become a cuss word in our day). We are hypocrites to tell our children to use a dictionary whenever they come upon a word in their school textbooks that they don't know, but when it comes to the greatest book in the world it's almost a sin that a dictionary might be required, or a little studying might be in order, when reading and studying the words of the living God.
Last edited by a moderator:
Manny Rodriguez
New Member
I have a lot of old works (19th and 18th century) about the English Bible. According to what I have read, it was my understanding that Queen Elizabeth I appointed the Bishops of England to produce an English Bible on English soil. If all of my information is wrong, than I'll gladly stand corrected.Logos1560 said: