Preface to the 1611 KJV—KJV translators KJVO?

[ResidentAlien]

In their Preface, the King James translators make a lot of revealing comments about their philosophy and intentions. I'd like to quote a couple of them and then ask a question.

"And what marvel? The original thereof being from heaven, not from earth; the author being God, not man;"​

​

"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, (for then the imputation of [pope] Sixtus had been true in some sort, that our people had been fed with gall of dragons instead of wine, with whey instead of milk 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 endeavour, that our mark."​

The first quote speaks of the autographs. They seem to indicate that the autographs themselves were the only perfect and inspired words of God.

In the second quote they speak of making a new version that could "not be justly excepted against"; that is, one that no one could make a claim against as containing "gall of dragons instead of wine" or "whey instead of milk." The context mentions Sixtus and his claims about the previous Protestant Bibles as being faulty. Their purpose seems to have been to create a version that could overcome claims like these.

In light of this, could the translators have been saying that their intention was to make a perfect and infallible English translation; one that contained the very words of God? In the first paragraph they said that the originals were the perfect words of God. What say you?

 

[GRACE_ambassador]

In the first paragraph they said that the originals were the perfect words of God. What say you?

I believe God "Preserved His Pure Words" for me, in my own language,
so that I could know "His Word Of Truth" for me, and trust in Him.

Amen.

Grace, Peace, And JOY In His Word Of Truth, Rightly Divided!

 

[ResidentAlien]

I believe God "Preserved His Pure Words" for me, in my own language,
so that I could know "His Word Of Truth" for me, and trust in Him.

Okay. What's your view of the quotes I posted and my question? That's the topic.

 

[Nehemiah6]

In light of this, could the translators have been saying that their intention was to make a perfect and infallible English translation; one that contained the very words of God? In the first paragraph they said that the originals were the perfect words of God. What say you?

What they were saying is that they wished to make an exceptional translation to which no one could take exception. And they fulfilled their objective. The King James Bible has been exceptional for over 400 years.

 

[Dino246]

They made a decent translation, which though certainly (and proveably) not "perfect", was adequate for the time. Now that we have access to thousands more manuscripts, it makes sense to use all available evidence and wisdom to determine not only which is the best English to render the original language, but also the most likely underlying words.

To the questions in the OP:

"In light of this, could the translators have been saying that their intention was to make a perfect and infallible English translation; one that contained the very words of God? In the first paragraph they said that the originals were the perfect words of God. What say you? "

No, their intent was clearly not to make a perfect and infallible English translation, but only to make one better than what was then available. Whether they succeeded in that goal is purely a matter of opinion.

 

[ResidentAlien]

What they were saying is that they wished to make an exceptional translation to which no one could take exception. And they fulfilled their objective. The King James Bible has been exceptional for over 400 years.

The one thing that's absent is the claim of making an infallible Bible. Where's that?

 

[ResidentAlien]

From the KJV Preface:

"Now to the later we answer: that we do not deny, nay we affirm and avow, that the very meanest [most humble] 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) contains the word of God, nay, is the word of God."​

​

I have no doubt the KJV translators would say their translation is the word of God, but not the only word of God. They used many of the previous versions for comparison in making the KJV. These are the "mean" or humble attempts they speak of, and apparently considered them the word of God, incomplete though they were.

However, I do think they might say something quite different about all the paraphrases and dynamic equivalency versions around today.

 

[persistent]

In their Preface, the King James translators make a lot of revealing comments about their philosophy and intentions. I'd like to quote a couple of them and then ask a question.

"And what marvel? The original thereof being from heaven, not from earth; the author being God, not man;"​

​

"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, (for then the imputation of [pope] Sixtus had been true in some sort, that our people had been fed with gall of dragons instead of wine, with whey instead of milk 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 endeavour, that our mark."​

The first quote speaks of the autographs. They seem to indicate that the autographs themselves were the only perfect and inspired words of God.

In the second quote they speak of making a new version that could "not be justly excepted against"; that is, one that no one could make a claim against as containing "gall of dragons instead of wine" or "whey instead of milk." The context mentions Sixtus and his claims about the previous Protestant Bibles as being faulty. Their purpose seems to have been to create a version that could overcome claims like these.

In light of this, could the translators have been saying that their intention was to make a perfect and infallible English translation; one that contained the very words of God? In the first paragraph they said that the originals were the perfect words of God. What say you?

Seems that some if not all of the translators statements are suspect in that they apparently find it necessary to argue against a pope identified here as Sixtus. What does an argument with whichever Sixtus, and there are several, this is have to do with the inerrancy of the translators work. My opinion is that while the translators may have attempted to present themselves as above reproach it was primarily the reproach of worldly dignitaries and not God.

 

[John146]

In their Preface, the King James translators make a lot of revealing comments about their philosophy and intentions. I'd like to quote a couple of them and then ask a question.

"And what marvel? The original thereof being from heaven, not from earth; the author being God, not man;"​

​

"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, (for then the imputation of [pope] Sixtus had been true in some sort, that our people had been fed with gall of dragons instead of wine, with whey instead of milk 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 endeavour, that our mark."​

The first quote speaks of the autographs. They seem to indicate that the autographs themselves were the only perfect and inspired words of God.

In the second quote they speak of making a new version that could "not be justly excepted against"; that is, one that no one could make a claim against as containing "gall of dragons instead of wine" or "whey instead of milk." The context mentions Sixtus and his claims about the previous Protestant Bibles as being faulty. Their purpose seems to have been to create a version that could overcome claims like these.

In light of this, could the translators have been saying that their intention was to make a perfect and infallible English translation; one that contained the very words of God? In the first paragraph they said that the originals were the perfect words of God. What say you?

They didn't have access to the originals. Nobody has access to the originals. Let's never place more emphasis on the originals than God. Inspiration without preservation is meaningless.

 

[persistent]

They didn't have access to the originals. Nobody has access to the originals. Let's never place more emphasis on the originals than God. Inspiration without preservation is meaningless.

This seems like a matter to be considered but the translators state 'original' not 'originals'. They may be referring to the 'Bishops' Bible or some translation they already had. I ran across some discussion regarding the translators work on the AV and there was mentioned how they also referred to the work of Kimchi. So apparently they brought in extraneous 'works' in pursuit of the AV. How does that play into the 1611 version of the AV?

 

[ResidentAlien]

They didn't have access to the originals. Nobody has access to the originals. Let's never place more emphasis on the originals than God.

Tell that to the KJV translators. They're the ones who wrote that they believed the originals to be the very words of God. They're the ones who emphasized it.

Inspiration without preservation is meaningless.

I agree, but if by "preserve" you mean the KJV and only the KJV then all I can say is give something tangible and perhaps I'll agree.

 

[Dirtman]

KJV onlyism is a very clever form of idolatry. A way of elevating the self. As in the self held approval that the self is right above all others; including the producers of the work that is the object of their confirmation bias.
It is not about the word of God. It is about the book being the evidence of the idea that they are right and Holy Above all others; including those who brought the book and even more so concerning those who brought the teachings of the faith to the producers of the book. Because those ancestors never had the book in that form. Therefore never had the book and could not have been in the faith.

 

[ResidentAlien]

KJV onlyism is a very clever form of idolatry. A way of elevating the self. As in the self held approval that the self is right above all others; including the producers of the work that is the object of their confirmation bias.
It is not about the word of God. It is about the book being the evidence of the idea that they are right and Holy Above all others; including those who brought the book and even more so concerning those who brought the teachings of the faith to the producers of the book. Because those ancestors never had the book in that form. Therefore never had the book and could not have been in the faith.

Yes, I see what you mean.

To me KJVO seems like a private club that only grants admission to those with the special ability to "see." There certainly aren't any observable facts on which to base KJVO. Membership in the club makes a person feel special, like they belong.

Even the KJV translators (I almost hate calling them that. They really were editors of the Bishop's Bible) considered those partial Bibles that came before them God's preserved word. But I guess KJVO know better than them and the translators who preceded them.

The KJV has good points. We should follow the example of the KJV team and build upon their work as they built upon the work of previos generations, not idolize a book.

 

[Nehemiah6]

There certainly aren't any observable facts on which to base KJVO.

The observable facts are for those who wish to observe them. They can be rather inconvenient for others.

So kindly begin by investing in The Revision Revised by Dean John William Burgon (from Amazon). He was an outstanding and outspoken textual scholar who wrote numerous books after a lifetime of textual research. He was also highly regarded by F.H. A. Scrivener, perhaps the leading textual scholar of the 19th century (who wrote the text book on textual criticism).

 

[Dirtman]

Yes, I see what you mean.

To me KJVO seems like a private club that only grants admission to those with the special ability to "see." There certainly aren't any observable facts on which to base KJVO. Membership in the club makes a person feel special, like they belong.

Even the KJV translators (I almost hate calling them that. They really were editors of the Bishop's Bible) considered those partial Bibles that came before them God's preserved word. But I guess KJVO know better than them and the translators who preceded them.

The KJV has good points. We should follow the example of the KJV team and build upon their work as they built upon the work of previos generations, not idolize a book.

My favorite translation is the New KJV. I think is the most accurate and readable English translation, but that is only this mans opinion.

 

[ResidentAlien]

My favorite translation is the New KJV. I think is the most accurate and readable English translation, but that is only this mans opinion.

I agree. Of everything that's out there I think the NKJV is the best progression from the KJV. I read the New Testament from it but default to the ESV for the Old Testament. But I don' rely on the ESV entirely; if I have a question I check the NKJV and KJV or the Hebrew. I will even check the NLT if something is completely unintelligible; but again, I only use it for a reference, I don't rely on it.

 

[ResidentAlien]

The observable facts are for those who wish to observe them. They can be rather inconvenient for others.

So kindly begin by investing in The Revision Revised by Dean John William Burgon (from Amazon). He was an outstanding and outspoken textual scholar who wrote numerous books after a lifetime of textual research. He was also highly regarded by F.H. A. Scrivener, perhaps the leading textual scholar of the 19th century (who wrote the text book on textual criticism).

Knowing Burgon, this sounds like a hit piece on the critical text, not evidence for the infallibility of the KJV. The critical text needs to be hit, but that's not the real issue. The issue is whether God's word is preserved in the KJV and only the KJV. I've found no evidence to suggest the KJV team thought they were creating the final Bible.

Your "observable facts" are really nothing more than a book full of circumstantial evidence. If you had anything definitive you'd be beside yourself to get it out there. And it wouldn't take a whole book.

 

[montana123]

Concerning KJVO don't the denominations do the same liking the attitude out of all the denominations we have the truth we are number 1.

Like people that like the Republican and Democrat parties so they can choose a side and say my side is truth and better.

I think a lot of people that claim Christianity like that there are different denominations so they can fight and say I have the truth and better

This website is a good example for many people argue with other people and get sarcastic and belittling of those who oppose them.

I wonder why they don't stop posting but keep going back and forth with those people that are being sarcastic and belittling them.

 

[oyster67]

"And what marvel? The original thereof being from heaven, not from earth; the author being God, not man;"

Amen! God is the Author and Finisher of His Written Word as well as our Faith.

 

[John146]

I agree. Of everything that's out there I think the NKJV is the best progression from the KJV. I read the New Testament from it but default to the ESV for the Old Testament. But I don' rely on the ESV entirely; if I have a question I check the NKJV and KJV or the Hebrew. I will even check the NLT if something is completely unintelligible; but again, I only use it for a reference, I don't rely on it.

You do understand this is placing you as the final decision maker...personally, I don't want such responsibility.