KJV translators weren't KJV only!

[ResidentAlien]

Unfortunately, the Preface to the 1611 KJV translation has been erased from KJV Bibles. In it, the translators explain their translation philosophy. They tell how it is their belief that all translations must of necessity have "imperfections and blemishes," but this doesn't disqualify them from being the word of God:

"Now to the latter we answer; that we do not deny, nay we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession, (for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God. As the King's speech, which he uttereth in Parliament, being translated into French, Dutch, Italian, and Latin, is still the King's speech, though it be not interpreted by every Translator with the like grace, nor peradventure so fitly for phrase, nor so expressly for sense, everywhere. For it is confessed, that things are to take their denomination of the greater part; and a natural man could say, Verum ubi multa nitent in carmine, non ego paucis offendor maculis [But where many beauties shine in a poem, I will not be offended at a few blemishes—Horace], .etc. A man may be counted a virtuous man, though he have made many slips in his life, (else, there were none virtuous, for in many things we offend all) [James 3:2] also a comely man and lovely, though he have some warts upon his hand, yea, not only freckles upon his face, but also scars. No cause therefore why the word translated should be denied to be the word, or forbidden to be current, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it."​

To put it simply: the KJV translators were not KJV only!

How did we get to a place where people think only one version, and it alone, can be the word of God? In my opinion, this is a devilish idea inspired by the father of lies himself. If the KJV translators weren't KJV only, why in the world would someone think they understand their translation better than they did???

The full preface is available here, and elsewhere.

 

[Lanolin]

because KJV only seem to be americans which is ironic when you think about it, they should be rooting for their own version like maybe The Message Only Bibles, or POTUSV rather than a British english translation.

Nobody in England even calls it the KJV, they call it the AV (authorised version)

 

[Lanolin]

It was just nobody read or spoke Latin in England so they needed an English translation.

Read some history and find out how it came about.

 

[AandW]

Unfortunately, the Preface to the 1611 KJV translation has been erased from KJV Bibles. In it, the translators explain their translation philosophy. They tell how it is their belief that all translations must of necessity have "imperfections and blemishes," but this doesn't disqualify them from being the word of God:

"Now to the latter we answer; that we do not deny, nay we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession, (for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God. As the King's speech, which he uttereth in Parliament, being translated into French, Dutch, Italian, and Latin, is still the King's speech, though it be not interpreted by every Translator with the like grace, nor peradventure so fitly for phrase, nor so expressly for sense, everywhere. For it is confessed, that things are to take their denomination of the greater part; and a natural man could say, Verum ubi multa nitent in carmine, non ego paucis offendor maculis [But where many beauties shine in a poem, I will not be offended at a few blemishes—Horace], .etc. A man may be counted a virtuous man, though he have made many slips in his life, (else, there were none virtuous, for in many things we offend all) [James 3:2] also a comely man and lovely, though he have some warts upon his hand, yea, not only freckles upon his face, but also scars. No cause therefore why the word translated should be denied to be the word, or forbidden to be current, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it."​

To put it simply: the KJV translators were not KJV only!

How did we get to a place where people think only one version, and it alone, can be the word of God? In my opinion, this is a devilish idea inspired by the father of lies himself. If the KJV translators weren't KJV only, why in the world would someone think they understand their translation better than they did???

The full preface is available here, and elsewhere.

Yes, it amazes me how many still don't know this ^

 

[Lucy-Pevensie]

Unfortunately, the Preface to the 1611 KJV translation has been erased from KJV Bibles. In it, the translators explain their translation philosophy. They tell how it is their belief that all translations must of necessity have "imperfections and blemishes," but this doesn't disqualify them from being the word of God:

"Now to the latter we answer; that we do not deny, nay we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession, (for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God. As the King's speech, which he uttereth in Parliament, being translated into French, Dutch, Italian, and Latin, is still the King's speech, though it be not interpreted by every Translator with the like grace, nor peradventure so fitly for phrase, nor so expressly for sense, everywhere. For it is confessed, that things are to take their denomination of the greater part; and a natural man could say, Verum ubi multa nitent in carmine, non ego paucis offendor maculis [But where many beauties shine in a poem, I will not be offended at a few blemishes—Horace], .etc. A man may be counted a virtuous man, though he have made many slips in his life, (else, there were none virtuous, for in many things we offend all) [James 3:2] also a comely man and lovely, though he have some warts upon his hand, yea, not only freckles upon his face, but also scars. No cause therefore why the word translated should be denied to be the word, or forbidden to be current, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it."​

To put it simply: the KJV translators were not KJV only!

How did we get to a place where people think only one version, and it alone, can be the word of God? In my opinion, this is a devilish idea inspired by the father of lies himself. If the KJV translators weren't KJV only, why in the world would someone think they understand their translation better than they did???

The full preface is available here, and elsewhere.

Your point has been made repeatedly on many KJV Only threads.
It has never been enough to dissuade the Onlyists though. They do give a good bible a bad name.

 

[Gideon300]

Unfortunately, the Preface to the 1611 KJV translation has been erased from KJV Bibles. In it, the translators explain their translation philosophy. They tell how it is their belief that all translations must of necessity have "imperfections and blemishes," but this doesn't disqualify them from being the word of God:

"Now to the latter we answer; that we do not deny, nay we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession, (for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God. As the King's speech, which he uttereth in Parliament, being translated into French, Dutch, Italian, and Latin, is still the King's speech, though it be not interpreted by every Translator with the like grace, nor peradventure so fitly for phrase, nor so expressly for sense, everywhere. For it is confessed, that things are to take their denomination of the greater part; and a natural man could say, Verum ubi multa nitent in carmine, non ego paucis offendor maculis [But where many beauties shine in a poem, I will not be offended at a few blemishes—Horace], .etc. A man may be counted a virtuous man, though he have made many slips in his life, (else, there were none virtuous, for in many things we offend all) [James 3:2] also a comely man and lovely, though he have some warts upon his hand, yea, not only freckles upon his face, but also scars. No cause therefore why the word translated should be denied to be the word, or forbidden to be current, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it."​

To put it simply: the KJV translators were not KJV only!

How did we get to a place where people think only one version, and it alone, can be the word of God? In my opinion, this is a devilish idea inspired by the father of lies himself. If the KJV translators weren't KJV only, why in the world would someone think they understand their translation better than they did???

The full preface is available here, and elsewhere.

Anyone would think that the KJV was written in around 40 AD the way some people speak of it. I rarely refer to it. Bible Hub has more than enough versions to suit anyone who takes God's word seriously. I suspect the preface was removed because it is scarcely intelligible to people unfamiliar with 17th century English.

 

[John146]

Unfortunately, the Preface to the 1611 KJV translation has been erased from KJV Bibles. In it, the translators explain their translation philosophy. They tell how it is their belief that all translations must of necessity have "imperfections and blemishes," but this doesn't disqualify them from being the word of God:

"Now to the latter we answer; that we do not deny, nay we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession, (for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God. As the King's speech, which he uttereth in Parliament, being translated into French, Dutch, Italian, and Latin, is still the King's speech, though it be not interpreted by every Translator with the like grace, nor peradventure so fitly for phrase, nor so expressly for sense, everywhere. For it is confessed, that things are to take their denomination of the greater part; and a natural man could say, Verum ubi multa nitent in carmine, non ego paucis offendor maculis [But where many beauties shine in a poem, I will not be offended at a few blemishes—Horace], .etc. A man may be counted a virtuous man, though he have made many slips in his life, (else, there were none virtuous, for in many things we offend all) [James 3:2] also a comely man and lovely, though he have some warts upon his hand, yea, not only freckles upon his face, but also scars. No cause therefore why the word translated should be denied to be the word, or forbidden to be current, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it."​

To put it simply: the KJV translators were not KJV only!

How did we get to a place where people think only one version, and it alone, can be the word of God? In my opinion, this is a devilish idea inspired by the father of lies himself. If the KJV translators weren't KJV only, why in the world would someone think they understand their translation better than they did???

The full preface is available here, and elsewhere.

Can God's word be in error? When God speaks, does He ever speak in error?

 

[John146]

They do give a good bible a bad name.

How? By actually believing we hold God's holy, pure words in our hands? That is somehow viewed as bad?

 

[ResidentAlien]

Can God's word be in error? When God speaks, does He ever speak in error?

First, define "God's word." When you say that, to what are you referring, exactly?

 

[John146]

First, define "God's word." When you say that, to what are you referring, exactly?

The word that God speaks...God's word. God's word cannot be in error no matter how you try and spin it.

 

[John146]

First, define "God's word." When you say that, to what are you referring, exactly?

John 17:17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.

 

[ResidentAlien]

The word that God speaks...God's word. God's word cannot be in error no matter how you try and spin it.

I agree, such as it it is. But I fail to see what relevance this has to the topic at hand. You're not making any sense in the current context.

 

[Pilgrimshope]

Unfortunately, the Preface to the 1611 KJV translation has been erased from KJV Bibles. In it, the translators explain their translation philosophy. They tell how it is their belief that all translations must of necessity have "imperfections and blemishes," but this doesn't disqualify them from being the word of God:

"Now to the latter we answer; that we do not deny, nay we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession, (for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God. As the King's speech, which he uttereth in Parliament, being translated into French, Dutch, Italian, and Latin, is still the King's speech, though it be not interpreted by every Translator with the like grace, nor peradventure so fitly for phrase, nor so expressly for sense, everywhere. For it is confessed, that things are to take their denomination of the greater part; and a natural man could say, Verum ubi multa nitent in carmine, non ego paucis offendor maculis [But where many beauties shine in a poem, I will not be offended at a few blemishes—Horace], .etc. A man may be counted a virtuous man, though he have made many slips in his life, (else, there were none virtuous, for in many things we offend all) [James 3:2] also a comely man and lovely, though he have some warts upon his hand, yea, not only freckles upon his face, but also scars. No cause therefore why the word translated should be denied to be the word, or forbidden to be current, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it."​

To put it simply: the KJV translators were not KJV only!

How did we get to a place where people think only one version, and it alone, can be the word of God? In my opinion, this is a devilish idea inspired by the father of lies himself. If the KJV translators weren't KJV only, why in the world would someone think they understand their translation better than they did???

The full preface is available here, and elsewhere.

yes I think Many hear modern versions better because they don’t understand the antiquated language and most versions of the Bible are so all people can understand the same things.

when I was young I had an original niv which I still have today , as I’ve gotten older I prefer the kjv for myself but the niv has the same message as kjv it’s only as language has evolved there’s a need for translations into more modern language that people of that time speak and hear. We should choose a translation we can best understand at the time that’s my own thought

 

[Dino246]

I agree, such as it it is. But I fail to see what relevance this has to the topic at hand. You're not making any sense in the current context.

He makes sense to himself; he is a dyed-in-the-wool KJV-onlyist. For him, "God's word" = "KJV bible".

 

[John146]

I agree, such as it it is. But I fail to see what relevance this has to the topic at hand. You're not making any sense in the current context.

How can all the versions be the word of God when they contain different words which have different meanings and even different truths?

 

[ResidentAlien]

The only true word of God is in the autographs; that's my belief. Every copy and copies of copies have blemishes. It can't be avoided. Does that make it not the word of God? I don't believe so.

If an ancient manuscript was found and was titled The Gospel According to Matthew, and I began reading and it turned out to a work of Plato, then yeah, I'd say this "gospel" isn't the word of God. This is essentially what the KJV translators were saying: that is, though the translations aren't perfect they're still God's word.

By looking for one authoritative, perfect "word of God" you're waging a hopeless battle. The only truly perfect word of God are the autographs; but they're gone and won't be coming back—in this life anyway.

 

[Dino246]

How can all the versions be the word of God when they contain different words which have different meanings and even different truths?

Which, of course, is both a flawed question and is no proof that the KJV is anything special.

 

[Aaron56]

When I was younger, and desperate, I used to pray in King James English.

 

[John146]

Which, of course, is both a flawed question and is no proof that the KJV is anything special.

Example, Luke 10:1. Did the Lord appoint seventy or seventy-two? Either one is false and the other is true, or neither is true. They cannot both be true. Which is it?

KJV After these things the Lord appointed other seventy also, and sent them two and two before his face into every city and place, whither he himself would come.

ESV After this the Lord appointed seventy-two others and sent them on ahead of him, two by two, into every town and place where he himself was about to go.

 

[John146]

The only true word of God is in the autographs; that's my belief. Every copy and copies of copies have blemishes. It can't be avoided. Does that make it not the word of God? I don't believe so.

If an ancient manuscript was found and was titled The Gospel According to Matthew, and I began reading and it turned out to a work of Plato, then yeah, I'd say this "gospel" isn't the word of God. This is essentially what the KJV translators were saying: that is, though the translations aren't perfect they're still God's word.

By looking for one authoritative, perfect "word of God" you're waging a hopeless battle. The only truly perfect word of God are the autographs; but they're gone and won't be coming back—in this life anyway.

God cannot preserve His words perfectly through copies? You do know that the “originals” contain copies...

Is God going to hold us accountable to a flawed word?