Preface to the 1611 KJV—KJV translators KJVO?
- Thread starter ResidentAlien
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
KJVO is the same thing. In fact it is more so. You hare arbitrarily decided that you and you alone have the word of God, with no real evidence only conjecture, opinion, and confirmation bias.
You have decided that being the only word of God that christian vhurches that use other translations arent church and that christians who use other translations arent Christian. You have decided that letters printed on paper in factories and bound in plastic is Holy, rather than the content of the words. You have decided the printed words to be sacred rather than a conveyance of God's word. You have made Gods word a dusty old book on a shelf not a living flow of life from the Holy Spirit to the soul of people. You have decided that those who had the manuscripts in Alexandria are not Christian even though an Alexandrian was part of the very council that God used to compile the canon, not only was he part but a leader. But he nor his church were Christian because they had text that you reject. There is such a litany of problems with your philosophy that it would be impossible to post it here. It would take a book to show the full extent. You have taken upon yourself the judgement of all.
You have decided that being the only word of God that christian vhurches that use other translations arent church and that christians who use other translations arent Christian. You have decided that letters printed on paper in factories and bound in plastic is Holy, rather than the content of the words. You have decided the printed words to be sacred rather than a conveyance of God's word. You have made Gods word a dusty old book on a shelf not a living flow of life from the Holy Spirit to the soul of people. You have decided that those who had the manuscripts in Alexandria are not Christian even though an Alexandrian was part of the very council that God used to compile the canon, not only was he part but a leader. But he nor his church were Christian because they had text that you reject. There is such a litany of problems with your philosophy that it would be impossible to post it here. It would take a book to show the full extent. You have taken upon yourself the judgement of all.
I am but a small twig on a tree full of the people of God and am one in a long line of fathers and grandfather and ancestors in a long lineage of believers to the very One himself Jesus. Like a massive family tree and Jesus is the Root and his disciples branches and their disciples off shoot limbs and branches. And I simply a twig feed life from this massive tree. Only one small fork ever had that particular translation.
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.
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?
"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."
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?
-
1
- Show all
I can't argue with scripture, but unfortunately for you this passage says nothing whatsoever about the KJV; you have to read into it what you want it to say. This is the bottom line for KJVO. You have to have "special insight" to see things that aren't there. It's a club of the deluded.
-
1
- Show all
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.
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?
"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."
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?
rather than one translating from another they are all intent on translating an accurate version of what they believe are Gods words
that’s my opinion anyways
God's original words are in the autographs. If someone thinks they have His original words they would do well to remember this.
The idea of "oldest and best" was introduced by the Jesuit counter reformation. It was nothing more than Satan's trick on people who didn't know any better and has actually been very effective. It sounds good until you start looking into these "old" manuscripts and the characters promoting them. Fortunately I had a mother who drilled a question into my head: If everyone else jumped off a cliff would you too?
Oldest isn't necessarily best, even if they really are as old as claimed.
The idea of "oldest and best" was introduced by the Jesuit counter reformation. It was nothing more than Satan's trick on people who didn't know any better and has actually been very effective. It sounds good until you start looking into these "old" manuscripts and the characters promoting them. Fortunately I had a mother who drilled a question into my head: If everyone else jumped off a cliff would you too?
Oldest isn't necessarily best, even if they really are as old as claimed.
Here's the rub: the KJV translators were not working from manuscripts at all, but from printed editions.
my point is every translator must believe they are working from the original information , word , knowledge however one wants To put it .
mostly all bibles until about thirty years ago had the same type of preface pages in them like the op is talking about explaining how thier intent and process went and was intended is to offer a credible and accurate translation into whatever language the reader is reading in
if they don’t believe they are translating the original words and language it’s shoots thier whole project in the foot is my only point you don’t dedicate years of your life to translate something you don’t think is accurate or original
again I’m not saying anyone had the ancient forst scrolls they had transcriptions from scribes that survived the desolations of Jerusalem by Babylon , Persia , Greek and eventually Rome
what we have are copies or transcriptions of the original manuscripts. Every translator must believe they are translating the original statements or why donor to begin with is my point ?
the kjv process was more thorough than anything I’ve ever heard of myself , but I believe there are a lot of accurate translations of scripture not only one
It wasn't that thorough; anyone who says otherwise is making up stories.
The KJV team was made up of qualified scholars but they were constrained by the King. They had to follow his orders, one of which was to follow the Bishop's Bible (the "authorized version" at the time) as closely as possible except when the original languages prohibited it. They were qualified translators who no doubt could have done a new translation from scratch, but that's not what James wanted.
The KJV team was made up of qualified scholars but they were constrained by the King. They had to follow his orders, one of which was to follow the Bishop's Bible (the "authorized version" at the time) as closely as possible except when the original languages prohibited it. They were qualified translators who no doubt could have done a new translation from scratch, but that's not what James wanted.
-
1
- Show all