Bible versions-Is there only one?

[Locoponydirtman]

​

Yet before we end, we must answere a third cavill and objection of theirs against us, for altering and amending our Taanslations [sic] so oft; wherein truely they deale hardly, and strangely with us. For to whom ever was it imputed for a fault (by such as were wise) to goe over that which hee had done, and to amend it where he saw cause? ​

​

- preface to the 1611 king James translation​

Now you are getting to the cruxs of the conundrum. For the KJV cultists, they want to hail it as inspired of God but want to ignore the statements of the very translators.

 

[posthuman]

Now you are getting to the cruxs of the conundrum. For the KJV cultists, they want to hail it as inspired of God but want to ignore the statements of the very translators.

well, the translators were sure that the scripture itself is inspired by God, too, but they didn't consider their own work to be 'the end-all' of English translations, nor did they have anything like the devotion to a single translation at all that many modern people do. in the preface they quote Augustine saying that "varietie of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures" in order to justify why they chose to translate the same Hebrew or Greek word into many different English words instead of one. this isn't the sense in which Augustine said it, though, and the translators well knew it, making a larger point, because in the same sections of the preface they are also justifying themselves against the obvious question being raised at that time, 'why are you making another translation? aren't the ones that already exist good?' -- which is answered directly by Augustine's comment: it is profitable to consider many different translations, because it helps you understand the true meaning of what is said - that thing being said originally not in the language you're reading it from. that's an argument directly against 'one translation to rule them all' and it's an argument the translators themselves use to explain how they went about their work in translating.

modern kjv-only-ists make this same argument against anything newer than the 'authorized' version of the kjv, but the translators, faced with the same accusations, take a very different view. they want the Bible to be understood "by even the most vulgar" -- a word which in that day means uneducated, simple, not-very-bright people. so the translators of the kjv actually make the counterargument to the kjv-only-ists; the reason they made the kjv was so that common uneducated people could understand it clearly, and they didn't consider it an existential crisis that there exist more than one translation. they argue that they are all the word of God, just as the king's edict is the king's edict no matter what language it is read in or how poorly or how well translated it is into that language ((as i quoted, and i'll quote again - because it's really poignant)):

Now to the later we answere; that wee doe not deny, nay wee affirme and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set foorth by men of our profession (for wee have seene none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God. As the Kings Speech which hee uttered in Parliament, being translated into French, Dutch, Italian and Latine, is still the Kings Speech, though it be not interpreted by every Translator with the like grace, nor peradventure so fitly for phrase, nor so expresly for sence, every where. ​

​

​

so, yeah, for whatever it's worth, the actual translators of the kjv do not seem to share the views of the devotees of their work.

 

[Nehemiah6]

preface to the 1611 king James translation

When the claim is made that this particular modern version is based on "the best" manuscripts, and with the aid of hundreds of "the best" scholars, using "the best" principles of textual criticism, then there should be no need of revision. After all you have been given a SUPERLATIVE translation! (or so they imagine).

And what was stated in the Preface should be kept in context. You should also have included this statement from the Preface:

"Truly (good Christian Reader) we never thought from the beginning, that we should need to make a new Translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one... but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principal good one, not justly to be excepted against; that hath been our endeavor, that our mark..."

And so it turned out that of the many English translations available to these men, they made "on principal (chief) good one" which could not justly be taken exception to. And as a result all the lexicons, concordances, and commentaries used the King James Bible as the standard English language bible. There are 31 commentaries available on Bible Hub. Yet out of all those there may be only one or two which do not use the KJV as the basis of their commentary.

 

[KJV1611]

It was common in that time to eliminate any possible rivalry to the throne

But yet Ahab's lineage continued Ahaziah and then Joram and then more of his descendants. Did God destroy everyone male descendant of Ahab?

 

[KJV1611]

The texts saying this have zero to do with David being King, a wall being a type of Christ. I believe this was used 6 times in that version.

Part of the issue is this terminology was also used as a phrase when David had long passed. Note 2 Kings 9:8.

Culturally, from what I’ve read, it refers to male children. Adults would in this culture sit to do this, not stand exposed. The texts using this phrase are literally saying that those it is referring to are under judgment, their male children will not make it to adulthood. But, KJVOnlyism comes up with many absurd interpretations, failing to heed 2 Timothy 2:15.

1Sa 25:15 But the men were very good unto us, and we were not hurt, neither missed we any thing, as long as we were conversant with them, when we were in the fields:
1Sa 25:16 They were a wall unto us both by night and day, all the while we were with them keeping the sheep.

Was David and his men the wall that verse 16 speaks of?

 

[KJV1611]

​

Now to the later we answere; that wee doe not deny, nay wee affirme and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set foorth by men of our profession (for wee have seene none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God. As the Kings Speech which hee uttered in Parliament, being translated into French, Dutch, Italian and Latine, is still the Kings Speech, though it be not interpreted by every Translator with the like grace, nor peradventure so fitly for phrase, nor so expresly for sence, every where. ​

​

- preface to the 1611 king James translation​

Do you know who wrote that preface?

 

[Locoponydirtman]

1Sa 25:15 But the men were very good unto us, and we were not hurt, neither missed we any thing, as long as we were conversant with them, when we were in the fields:
1Sa 25:16 They were a wall unto us both by night and day, all the while we were with them keeping the sheep.

Was David and his men the wall that verse 16 speaks of?

The problem is that that phrase is used a few more times and there was no protectors to be a wall.
I looked at other translations that came from the textus receptus and they did not use this vulgar idiom. I think this was vile King James pissing against the wall, if that wall is scripture.

 

[KJV1611]

The problem is that that phrase is used a few more times and there was no protectors to be a wall.
I looked at other translations that came from the textus receptus and they did not use this vulgar idiom. I think this was vile King James pissing against the wall, if that wall is scripture.

1 Samuel let's us know what the wall is so that when we read the phrase in other parts of the bible we know what it means. That's the way the bible is written.

Here's the verse from the Geneva bible and their comment.

1 Samuel 25:22 1599 Geneva Bible (GNV)

22 So and more also do God unto the enemies of David: for surely I will not leave of all that he hath by the dawning of the day, any that [a]pisseth against the wall.


Footnotes:

1. 1 Samuel 25:22 Meaning by this proverb, that he would destroy both small and great.

Here it is from Wycliffe and his comment.

1 Samuel 25:22 Wycliffe Bible (WYC)

22 The Lord do these things, and add he these things to the enemies of David, if I shall leave (anything) undestroyed of all things that pertain to him till tomorrow (yea, even) a pisser to a wall. (May the Lord do these things, and add he other things, to David’s enemies, if I leave anything unwasted until tomorrow out of all the things that pertain to him, yea, even a pisser on the wall.)

 

[Locoponydirtman]

I thank God that men who loved God more than power began revising the KJV in the 1800s and in 1901 presented us an actual English translation in the American Standard version. They finally purified themselves of the final tyranny of the Kings that being his domaneering over the word of God. It took free men who loved God much work to do it but they succeeded.

 

[KJV1611]

I thank God that men who loved God more than power began revising the KJV in the 1800s and in 1901 presented us an actual English translation in the American Standard version. They finally purified themselves of the final tyranny of the Kings that being his domaneering over the word of God. It took free men who loved God much work to do it but they succeeded.

Do you know if the ASV was the bible that was supposed to be an updated version of the KJV but it was so drastically different from the KJV that they weren't allow to call it a KJV?

 

[John146]

I thank God that men who loved God more than power began revising the KJV in the 1800s and in 1901 presented us an actual English translation in the American Standard version. They finally purified themselves of the final tyranny of the Kings that being his domaneering over the word of God. It took free men who loved God much work to do it but they succeeded.

And brought about the Laodicean Age. Thanks a lot ASV.

 

[John146]

I thank God that men who loved God more than power began revising the KJV in the 1800s and in 1901 presented us an actual English translation in the American Standard version. They finally purified themselves of the final tyranny of the Kings that being his domaneering over the word of God. It took free men who loved God much work to do it but they succeeded.

And thank the Lord for using the KJV to bring about the greatest revival the world has ever seen.

 

[KJV1611]

And brought about the Laodicean Age. Thanks a lot ASV.

Laodicean Age? Do you think the church, the body of Christ, has fallen away?

 

[Locoponydirtman]

Do you know if the ASV was the bible that was supposed to be an updated version of the KJV but it was so drastically different from the KJV that they weren't allow to call it a KJV?

Well the first problem with that is that it's false. They never had any intentions of calling the American Standard version any kind of reform the revised King James version, even though that is exactly what it is. An actual return to scripture, a reformed King James version.

 

[Locoponydirtman]

And brought about the Laodicean Age. Thanks a lot ASV.

I don't know if the qualify that as bad theology or bad biblical interpretation.

 

[Locoponydirtman]

And thank the Lord for using the KJV to bring about the greatest revival the world has ever seen.

Yes thank the Lord that he was able to use the inferior, King James version, and the new found freedom of a independent nation to cause a second Great Awakening. This return to the word caused them to really desire to return to the word and purify the King James version and create the American Standard version like Gideon discovering the word again.

 

[Locoponydirtman]

Laodicean Age? Do you think the church, the body of Christ, has fallen away?

Absolutely not. There are very many devout Jesus loving Christians. However just as always there are those who are way off base, but that started in the age of the apostles. Paul addressed some in his Epistles.

 

[KJV1611]

Well the first problem with that is that it's false. They never had any intentions of calling the American Standard version any kind of reform the revised King James version, even though that is exactly what it is. An actual return to scripture, a reformed King James version.

It was actually the Revised Version that I was thinking of, and it was an authorized update to the KJV.

A committee established by the Convocation of Canterbury in February 1870 reported favourably three months later on the idea of revising the King James Version; two companies were formed, one each for the Old and New Testaments. A novel development was the inclusion of scholars representative of the major Christian traditions, except Roman Catholics (who declined the invitation to participate). Another innovation was the formation of parallel companies in the United States, to whom the work of the British scholars was submitted and who in turn sent back their reactions. The instructions to the committees made clear that only a revision, not a new translation, was contemplated.

They ignored the last part and completely changed the KJV into a new translation.

 

[Locoponydirtman]

It was actually the Revised Version that I was thinking of, and it was an authorized update to the KJV.

A committee established by the Convocation of Canterbury in February 1870 reported favourably three months later on the idea of revising the King James Version; two companies were formed, one each for the Old and New Testaments. A novel development was the inclusion of scholars representative of the major Christian traditions, except Roman Catholics (who declined the invitation to participate). Another innovation was the formation of parallel companies in the United States, to whom the work of the British scholars was submitted and who in turn sent back their reactions. The instructions to the committees made clear that only a revision, not a new translation, was contemplated.

They ignored the last part and completely changed the KJV into a new translation.

The revised version did later become the American standard version, and then the New American standard version.

 

[John146]

Laodicean Age? Do you think the church, the body of Christ, has fallen away?

Nope, just lukewarm.