Where did King James only originate?

[fredoheaven]

You're dodging and rationalizing. You haven't satisfactorily addressed the real issue. If God was intent on creating an uncorrupted Bible why did He allow corruptions into the printing process.

In one 1611 edition, "Jesus" was printed as "Judas"! You're saying that's not a corruption? In the 1637, the seventh commandment states: "Thou shalt commit adultery"! Obviously no corruption here.

There’s really a need for understanding what corruption is and who is responsible. This is a blame game, perhaps misinformation. As said, the translators were not to be blamed neither God is to be blamed. God goes into the process of course; Printing was slow and laborious in 1611. All the typesetting was done by hand and there was no hard copy available. Errors abound but these were gradually weeded out and through subsequent editions and the corrections are mostly Typo errors. One of the cases is found in Matthew 26:36 but was corrected in 1613 from Judas to Jesus. The fact of this obvious error in no way affects the text of the KJB we hold today. Yes, it is the typesetters who are unreliable but not the word of God. And yet, I have to correct you here, it was not in 1637 but rather in 1631 the “Wicked Bible” is produced and the printer, Robert Barker, was said to have been fined £300 for the error. Most copies of that edition were either corrected or destroyed as 1,000 copies of this Bible were ordered suppressed.

 

[fredoheaven]

My point exactly: "and with the former translations diligently compared and refined. . ."

Yes, but it was firsthand translated out of the original tongue. Then the comparison begins since that previous translation came out from a good one too, yet, needed some purifications.

 

[ResidentAlien]

It's also possible to argue that the KJV revisers were using a form of textual criticism themselves, using the texts that were available to them at the time. They consulted the Greek, then other available resources, and then selected what they felt was the most probable meaning of the original.

 

[justbyfaith]

well it may be commonly thought but it's not really the case.
the Hebrew word in Isaiah 14:12 is hêylêl and if it's meant to be a proper name that would be it, not 'lucifer'
that word is very difficult to translate; when the Bible was transcribed in Latin, they didn't really know what the word is, but understood linguistically that it has something to do with 'shining' -- so the Latin word 'lucifer' which more or less means shining was substituted.
when the kjv was made, they often used the Vulgate instead of Hebrew or Greek documents. so they just copied the word lucifer into the text from the Latin, not really having any better idea of what hêylêl really means at the time.

so 'Lucifer' is a word that appeared in Latin as a name for Satan. it's a made-up name. and the kjv tradition perpetuated the myth that it's his proper name, that you are continuing.

So, you're saying that for four centuries, the church has had it wrong; and you're going to be the one to bring correction to that...?

 

[justbyfaith]

From the get-go typos and errors were found in the KJV. I think there were three different editions printed in 1611. This just shows that infallible humans can make mistakes. Why should we believe that God's autographs were preserved perfectly in the 1611 KJV when the printers couldn't even get it right.

You could say God oversaw the process and led the KJV editors to choose His words. Why then didn't He help the printers?

Because doctrine is what truly matters; not necessarily how a word might be spelled.

 

[ResidentAlien]

Because doctrine is what truly matters; not necessarily how a word might be spelled.

I agree. Doctrine is what matters.

 

[fredoheaven]

It's also possible to argue that the KJV revisers were using a form of textual criticism themselves, using the texts that were available to them at the time. They consulted the Greek, then other available resources, and then selected what they felt was the most probable meaning of the original.

You worded it differently to bring the change of meaning. The Title page bears the "translation" not consulted the Greek. Yes, it was not based on their feelings but on what they know as translators. Remember the rules of the KJB, unlike today's editors, are mostly the product of two or three Greek authors of lexicons which were their basis oftentimes coming from unsaved unitarians.

 

[ResidentAlien]

You worded it differently to bring the change of meaning. The Title page bears the "translation" not consulted the Greek. Yes, it was not based on their feelings but on what they know as translators. Remember the rules of the KJB, unlike today's editors, are mostly the product of two or three Greek authors of lexicons which were their basis oftentimes coming from unsaved unitarians.

I'm just saying that when it says "Newly Translated out of the Original Tongues," this is only half true.

 

[ResidentAlien]

It should also be pointed out that they used readings from the Catholic Rheims New Testament of 1852, which agree with Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.

 

[Nehemiah6]

I'm just saying that when it says "Newly Translated out of the Original Tongues," this is only half true.

As if you were sitting with those translators back in the 17th century and know for a fact that they were lying when they said that they actually went to the original Hebrew and Greek texts for their translation. You have been making a lot of half-baked and nonsensical statements to show your contempt for the King James Bible and its translators. But those who know the truth about this will not be swayed by nonsensical statements.

From what we read in the preface of the KJB (1611) the translators (1) went right back to the 1516-1525 printed Hebrew Bible (Mikraot Gedolot) of Jacob be Chayyim for the Old Testament and to the 1550 Textus Receptus of Stephanus for the New Testament. These were indeed THE ORIGINAL TONGUES. At the same time, the translators were not afraid to examine every English translation in existence, as well as translations in other languages. Their objective was to make one OUTSTANDING translation out of the many in existence.

When Christians seek to attack the leading English translation of the Bible, they are in fact attacking the Word of God. No better than the Higher and Lower critics who made it their life's work to destroy the Bible (although it is indestructible).

 

[posthuman]

So, you're saying that for four centuries, the church has had it wrong; and you're going to be the one to bring correction to that...?

erm, no - this is pretty common knowledge among anyone who has ever bothered to search it out.
trouble being that most people don't do things like go digging for the truth

 

[justbyfaith]

erm, no - this is pretty common knowledge among anyone who has ever bothered to search it out.
trouble being that most people don't do things like go digging for the truth

A rejection of the kjv is not the truth.

And you have to do that in order to deny that the devil's name was once "Lucifer".

But it's not worth arguing over; even though it is sound doctrine it is a peripheral issue as far as I'm concerned.

And of course, if anyone isn't faithful in the little things, how will they be faithful in that which is much?

 

[posthuman]

It's also possible to argue that the KJV revisers were using a form of textual criticism themselves, using the texts that were available to them at the time. They consulted the Greek, then other available resources, and then selected what they felt was the most probable meaning of the original.

of course they did. they were honorable God fearing men who did the best they could with the resources they had available.
and that's the thing we do to, i pray!
and that's what is the reality of what W&H and those who went before them did, and why many new translations have appeared in the last couple hundred years. archaeology has uncovered more resources. we've realized that the Byzantine family of texts isn't as trustworthy and isn't the closest in time to the originals. many things that weren't clear before are now more clearly additions or errors, based on evidence that no one knew about in the 16th century.
that's where the kjv-only site's list of 'deletions' comes from. it's not people trying to destroy the Bible secretly. it's men doing their best to sort out how newly revealed information may add to or alter what the best men could do in the 16th & 17th centuries.

we need to bear in mind that 1611 is barely more than 400 years ago. there's been all this talk of 'oh wow kjv 4evaaa b/c 400 years & english FTW' but prior to this, the best approximation of the original scriptures ((provided you understood Latin, which if you had any education at all back then, you did)) was Jerome's vulgate translation. one man, from Hebrew & Greek into Latin from even fewer resources, around 300 AD.
the Vulgate was the 'preserved word of God' in the way kjv-ists claim for 1,300 years. the 400yr history of kjv is less than a quarter of that. so maybe we ought to all learn Latin eh???
i'm game.

 

[posthuman]

A rejection of the kjv is not the truth.

well i mean, you say so.
and is now the true object of your faith made evident?

so do you care to tell me if a farthing has ever been a unit of currency in Jerusalem? or if it is now?
have you ever looked into the current market value of two sparrows?

it's frivolous, but it's not. theorems are proven or disproven at their extrema.

 

[posthuman]

And you have to do that in order to deny that the devil's name was once "Lucifer".

this is what i am informing you of:

lucifer is a Latin word. it is what they called the 2nd planet from the sun, the brightest object in the sky after the sun and moon, that we now call Venus, which appears most often towards the East low in the horizon. In this sense it is equivalent to 'the morning star' - it was a common name among people of Roman descent and it literally translates as something like 'light bringer'
Isaiah 14:12 is not written in Latin. it is written in Hebrew.
no one ever read Isaiah 12 as 'Lucifer' before 300 AD when Jerome chose to translate Helel this way. that's 1,000 years after Isaiah wrote his book. Isaiah wrote Helel.

so this is where we are: Daniel 1:6-7
is Daniel's name Belteshazzar?
is it Shadrach, Meshach & Abednego or is it Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah?
you need to decide whether you love kjv more than the truth. which is the pure language: Babylonian or Hebrew? English or Greek?

 

[posthuman]

if anyone isn't faithful in the little things, how will they be faithful in that which is much?

wow!
if only you honored Christ as much as you honor this translation!

 

[posthuman]

You worded it differently to bring the change of meaning. The Title page bears the "translation" not consulted the Greek. Yes, it was not based on their feelings but on what they know as translators. Remember the rules of the KJB, unlike today's editors, are mostly the product of two or three Greek authors of lexicons which were their basis oftentimes coming from unsaved unitarians.

not always the case. sometimes they just deferred to the Vulgate. you can see this by for example using the Latin word 'Lucifer' for the Hebrew word Helel, without even attempting to actually translate Helel to English




btw Fred you know we love each other. i'm just chatting here. i have no animosity i hope; only honesty as best i know how
i know you know & i know you love the same way. i just want it to be clear, especially to people who haven't been haunting this forum for years like you, @Nehemiah6 , @John146 and others have ♥

 

[justbyfaith]

wow!
if only you honored Christ as much as you honor this translation!

I honour Christ in that I honour the translation...

Because the translation accurately portrays Christ where many of the modern translations remain faulty in their execution of the language.

words, phrases, sentences, paragraphs, even entire passages are removed from what is considered to be holy scripture.

Jesus is the Lord and I honour Him as I honour the Father; as a matter of fact, I honour Him as the Father.

I find that the kjv and its equivalent in other languages is the truest rendition to relate to us who is the Word...

Other translations may be found to be cutting off certain aspects of His body, such as a finger. As they remove whole concepts from the word and since Jesus is the Word made flesh, if He is represented by the modern translations, He is a crippled Lord.

 

[Dino246]

I'm just saying that when it says "Newly Translated out of the Original Tongues," this is only half true.

Also, at least for the NT, the parts that were actually translated (rather than being adopted from previous English editions) were not translated from manuscripts but from printed Greek editions.

 

[Dino246]

I honour Christ in that I honour the translation...

Because the translation accurately portrays Christ where many of the modern translations remain faulty in their execution of the language.

Please provide three examples where "modern translations remain faulty in their execution of the language".

Differences in content (words, phrases, passages) between the KJV and other translations do not meet your criteria.