KJV translators weren't KJV only!

[fredoheaven]

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.

This is obvious, they used other English Translations. They could not be KJV only, they were KJV Finally.

 

[justbyfaith]

Firstly, this is not a primary matter of the Christian faith. It doesn't affect my walk with God at all.

Secondly, comparing one English translation to another English translation does not tell you which is correct; it only tells you that there is a difference. Those with an understanding of the textual issues behind the different English translations aren't overly concerned about this.

Thirdly, I have to wonder exactly who is behind this attempt to divide Christians from each other.

satan obviously had an issue with the idea of perfection in holy scripture so he created a bunch of translations that call it maturity instead; and the idea is that you are mature if you understand that you can never reach the goal of perfection.

 

[justbyfaith]

That argument could be made of many English translations, meaning your conclusion, while not inconsistent with your premises, is not actually unique to the KJV. In other words, you haven't presented a valid case for the KJV as against any other translation.

Of course it is a matter of faith.

Do you believe the modern translations that "maturity" is your goal; or will you believe the kjv and make perfection your goal?

And of course if you choose the former (the teaching of modern translations), you have to reject the teaching of the kjv.

My understanding is that such a thing is to heap to yourself teachers to tell you what your itching ears want to hear.

You hear what it says in the kjv, and say, I don't like that; what does this translation say?

 

[justbyfaith]

Are you saying these men stopped being flawed as they translated? Do you think the word Passover can be accurately translated as Easter? That God does not pass over when blood is given on the altar?

When all does it happen that imperfect man can be trusted to be perfect? I think that is called barking up the wrong tree.

Yes, the word for Passover, in Acts 12:4 is commonly used in Greek-speaking cultures to refer to Easter.

I bet you didn't know that.

Of course satan hates the idea of Easter (resurrection day) because it is the very thing that defeated him...he would love to wipe the idea from holy scripture entirely.

 

[justbyfaith]

2Co 12:9
And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me.,,,,So your saying that he's saying?.,,,that without our weakness his strength would not be perfect?,,Rather then that god refines us until we are made perfect?

It is not saying that exactly...it is saying that God commonly uses our weakness to make His power perfect.

Not that He cannot make His power perfect apart from our weakness.

That is overstepping it.

 

[rayzor]

Of course it is a matter of faith.

Do you believe the modern translations that "maturity" is your goal; or will you believe the kjv and make perfection your goal?

And of course if you choose the former (the teaching of modern translations), you have to reject the teaching of the kjv.

My understanding is that such a thing is to heap to yourself teachers to tell you what your itching ears want to hear.

You hear what it says in the kjv, and say, I don't like that; what does this translation say?

nobody translate all the scriptures word for word.For example John 1:1 reads In the beginning was the word and the was first with god and the word is god.

 

[rayzor]

It is not saying that exactly...it is saying that God commonly uses our weakness to make His power perfect.

Not that He cannot make His power perfect apart from our weakness.

That is overstepping it.

,,Would this be a better way to translate?,,,
It is not saying that exactly...it is saying that God commonly uses our weakness to make His power perfect. complete.

 

[rayzor]

Yes, the word for Passover, in Acts 12:4 is commonly used in Greek-speaking cultures to refer to Easter.

I bet you didn't know that.

Of course satan hates the idea of Easter (resurrection day) because it is the very thing that defeated him...he would love to wipe the idea from holy scripture entirely.

every one gets it wrong for good reason i guess.But satan = hell el is one of the first victims of sin. not 100 in control of himself.For he who sins is a slave to sin.Really he works for god not against him.Like when he asked to sift Peter.

 

[justbyfaith]

nobody translate all the scriptures word for word.For example John 1:1 reads In the beginning was the word and the was first with god and the word is god.

Nope.

 

[justbyfaith]

,,Would this be a better way to translate?,,,
It is not saying that exactly...it is saying that God commonly uses our weakness to make His power perfect. complete.

No.

 

[justbyfaith]

every one gets it wrong for good reason i guess.But satan = hell el is one of the first victims of sin. not 100 in control of himself.For he who sins is a slave to sin.Really he works for god not against him.Like when he asked to sift Peter.

satan's disposition is against God (capital "G").

But of course he cannot do anything without God's permission and is entirely subject to the will of the Father.

Which is saying something different from the concept that He works for God. The devil has only his own interests in mind.

That being said, Jesus is the Lord, and satan is entirely subject to Christ's Lordship; he cannot do anything that he wants to do to us unless it goes through the nail-pierced hands of Jesus first; he can do nothing without the permission of God.

 

[rayzor]

satan's disposition is against God (capital "G").

But of course he cannot do anything without God's permission and is entirely subject to the will of the Father.

Which is saying something different from the concept that He works for God. The devil has only his own interests in mind.

That being said, Jesus is the Lord, and satan is entirely subject to Christ's Lordship; he cannot do anything that he wants to do to us unless it goes through the nail-pierced hands of Jesus first; he can do nothing without the permission of God.

I think you missed the point that he is a slave to sin,that means he can't do want he wants to do sometimes but has to be obedient to the sin nature.

 

[justbyfaith]

I think you missed the point that he is a slave to sin,that means he can't do want he wants to do sometimes but has to be obedient to the sin nature.

But you said that he is working for God.

Are you contending that, in working for God, he is serving sin?

 

[Lucy-Pevensie]

How so?

They make it appear as if there might be something really wrong with it by their cult-like devotion
& attempts to discredit all other English Bibles.
Just look up one of the many threads on the subject to see how irrational it is.

It's not the KJV itself that is the problem. But the strange adulation some have for it.
It goes far beyond simple preference for a language style or tradition.

 

[justbyfaith]

They make it appear as if there might be something really wrong with it by their cult-like devotion
& attempts to discredit all other English Bibles.
Just look up one of the many threads on the subject to see how irrational it is.

It's not the KJV itself that is the problem. But the strange adulation some have for it.
It goes far beyond simple preference for a language style or tradition.

I will only say to this that personally, I do enjoy other translations such as the NLT. I have found special insight into the meaning of Galatians, for example, by reading the epistle according to that version.

However, I believe that the kjv is superior in that it is inspired and inerrant as concerning doctrine; and that where there is disagreement as concerning doctrine because of a difference in translation, that the kjv trumps other versions and is to be held superior to them.

 

[Lucy-Pevensie]

I will only say to this that personally, I do enjoy other translations such as the NLT. I have found special insight into the meaning of Galatians, for example, by reading the epistle according to that version.

However, I believe that the kjv is superior in that it is inspired and inerrant as concerning doctrine; and that where there is disagreement as concerning doctrine because of a difference in translation, that the kjv trumps other versions and is to be held superior to them.

Someone else on the forum promotes the NLT & KJV as acceptable versions on those same grounds.
As if there is some doctrinal difference they don't like in the other good translations.
I don't know if it's the teaching of a particular denomination. But it sounds suspicious to me.

Especially when the alleged "disagreements on doctrine" don't exist in the other Bibles.

 

[justbyfaith]

My contention with other versions is that they water down what I consider to be holiness preaching that is much more easily preached when one uses the kjv.

 

[John146]

Firstly, this is not a primary matter of the Christian faith. It doesn't affect my walk with God at all.

Secondly, comparing one English translation to another English translation does not tell you which is correct; it only tells you that there is a difference. Those with an understanding of the textual issues behind the different English translations aren't overly concerned about this.

Thirdly, I have to wonder exactly who is behind this attempt to divide Christians from each other.

You danced around the question. Which one is it, or neither. It obv cannot be both. My point, two versions cannot both be called the word of God.

 

[John146]

You don't believe this. If you did, you wouldn't have an issue with modern translations.

Sure, if I believe the KJV is the word of God. Modern translations contradict and are different than the KJV.

 

[John146]

Are you saying these men stopped being flawed as they translated? Do you think the word Passover can be accurately translated as Easter? That God does not pass over when blood is given on the altar?

When all does it happen that imperfect man can be trusted to be perfect? I think that is called barking up the wrong tree.

Did Moses stop being flawed when he penned Genesis? Of course not.

I’ve debunked Easter a dozen times on different threads. That’s an old argument trying to disqualify the KJV.