BaptistBoard.com  
     

Increase font size: 0, 10, 25, 50%
Register FAQ Social Groups Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Left Container Right Container
 
Go Back   BaptistBoard.com > Baptist DEBATE Forums (Baptist Only) > Bible Versions/Translations

Bible Versions/Translations Comparing & Contrasting Bible Versions & Translations

Fewer Ads for Registered Users - Register Now!

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 07-09-2012, 07:52 PM
franklinmonroe franklinmonroe is online now
2,000 Posts Club
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio
Posts: 2,739
Default The Textual Sources Behind the KJV?

PREFACE: There is much debate concerning the most accurate textual sources for translating the Bible into English. Supporters of the KJV claim that Ben Chayyim's (editor) Hebrew publication and the Textus Receptus critical Greek text (essentially Erasmus work lightly-edited in a few subsequent volumes) are the best, or in some cases, even the only 'perfect' sources; and because only the Authorized Version follows both this very specific Masoretic Hebrew and this narrow TR-tradition of Greek it alone (the KJV, that is) can claim superiority and the upmost fidelity among Bible versions.

QUESTION: What do historians, interested scholars, and others report were those textual sources available and used by the 1611 translators?
Secondary Questions: Can we know beyond reasonable doubt what the sources were? That is, can we trust the people that do this research?
__________________
"Odd, the way the less the Bible is read the more it is translated." -- C.S. Lewis (May 25, 1962)

Last edited by franklinmonroe; 07-09-2012 at 09:12 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 07-09-2012, 08:16 PM
franklinmonroe franklinmonroe is online now
2,000 Posts Club
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio
Posts: 2,739
Default John R. Kohlengerger III

Dr. Kohlenberger reviews and expands on McGrath's comments in his book In the Beginning concerning the sources that --
... there are at least three reliable witnesses to the textual resources available to the translators: (1) the catalog of printed texts from 1456 to 1610, (2) the documents surrounding the KJV, and (3) the KJV itself, especially its marginal notes and excellent introduction, "The Translators to the Reader".
The quote above can be read in complete context here --
http://books.google.com/books?id=l8Z...page&q&f=false
__________________
"Odd, the way the less the Bible is read the more it is translated." -- C.S. Lewis (May 25, 1962)

Last edited by franklinmonroe; 07-09-2012 at 09:16 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 07-09-2012, 08:28 PM
franklinmonroe franklinmonroe is online now
2,000 Posts Club
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio
Posts: 2,739
Default Rev. Steven Houck

Pastor Houck is evidently a strong KJV supporter when he states on a website that --
Even though the King James Version has its weaknesses, it is an excellent translation and by far the best version available today. We must not be taken in by the modern versions and their claims. Our 400 year old Bible is to be preferred above all others because it is better than them all. ...
Concerning the textual sources used by the KJV he states in addition to previously published English translations --
The Hebrew text had been remarkably preserved by God. At the time the translators were ready to begin their work, they had no less than ten printed editions of the Hebrew Old Testament available to them. There was the Complutensian Polyglot of Cardinal Ximenes published in 1517 which contained the Hebrew text (the fifth complete O. T.) as well as the Latin Vulgate and the Greek Septuagint translations of it. They had four editions by Daniel Bomberg (1516-17, 1516-17, 1521, 1525-28). The last of these was popular with the Reformers. The standard edition was considered to be that of Jacob ben Chayim-the Second Rabbinic Bible. Besides these, there was the Antwerp Polyglot (1572) with the Hebrew text of Arius Montanus and the Latin interlinear translation of Pagninus.

The Greek text was readily available in the Complutensian Polyglot (1514), the five editions of Erasmus (1516-1535), the four editions of Robert Stephanus (1546-1551), and the ten editions of Theodore Beza (1560-1598). They also consulted the editions of Aldus (1518), Colinaeus (1534), and Plantin (1572).
His entire "The King James Version Of The Bible" article here --
http://www.prca.org/pamphlets/pamphlet_9.html#sources
__________________
"Odd, the way the less the Bible is read the more it is translated." -- C.S. Lewis (May 25, 1962)

Last edited by franklinmonroe; 07-09-2012 at 09:14 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 07-09-2012, 08:36 PM
franklinmonroe franklinmonroe is online now
2,000 Posts Club
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio
Posts: 2,739
Default Dr. Laurence M. Vance

Pro-KJV Dr. Vance alluding to "The Translators to the Reader" states that besides all the English versions --
And, as the translators themselves also acknowledged, they had a multitude of sources from which to draw from: "Neither did we think much to consult the Translators or Commentators, Chaldee, Hebrew, Syrian, Greek, or Latin, no nor the Spanish, French, Italian, or Dutch." The Greek editions of Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza were all accessible, as were the Complutensian and Antwerp Polyglots, and the Latin translations of Pagninus, Termellius, and Beza.
From "A Brief History of the King James Bible" here --
http://www.av1611.org/kjv/kjvhist.html
__________________
"Odd, the way the less the Bible is read the more it is translated." -- C.S. Lewis (May 25, 1962)

Last edited by franklinmonroe; 07-09-2012 at 09:22 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 07-09-2012, 08:50 PM
franklinmonroe franklinmonroe is online now
2,000 Posts Club
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio
Posts: 2,739
Default F.H.A. Scrivener via Wikipedia

For their Old Testament, the translators used a text originating in the editions of the Hebrew Rabbinic Bible by Daniel Bomberg (1524/5),[110] but adjusted this to conform to the Greek LXX or Latin Vulgate in passages to which Christian tradition had attached a Christological interpretation. ...

For their New Testament, the translators chiefly used the 1598 and 1588/89 Greek editions of Theodore Beza,[114] which also present Beza's Latin version of the Greek and Stephanus's edition of the Latin Vulgate. Both of these versions were extensively referred to, as the translators conducted all discussions amongst themselves in Latin. F.H.A. Scrivener identifies 190 readings where the Authorized Version translators depart from Beza's Greek text, generally in maintaining the wording of the Bishop's Bible and other earlier English translations.[115] In about half of these instances, the Authorized Version translators appear to follow the earlier 1550 Greek Textus Receptus of Stephanus. ...
All three footnotes above ([110], [114], and [115]) refer to TR-defender Dr. Scrivener's comments in his 1884 "Authorized Edition of the English Bible, 1611, its subsequent reprints and modern representatives". Page numbers available here --
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_james_bible
__________________
"Odd, the way the less the Bible is read the more it is translated." -- C.S. Lewis (May 25, 1962)

Last edited by franklinmonroe; 07-09-2012 at 09:22 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 07-10-2012, 02:24 PM
Yeshua1 Yeshua1 is offline
10,000 Posts Club
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Metro Detroit
Posts: 14,534
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by franklinmonroe View Post
For their Old Testament, the translators used a text originating in the editions of the Hebrew Rabbinic Bible by Daniel Bomberg (1524/5),[110] but adjusted this to conform to the Greek LXX or Latin Vulgate in passages to which Christian tradition had attached a Christological interpretation. ...

For their New Testament, the translators chiefly used the 1598 and 1588/89 Greek editions of Theodore Beza,[114] which also present Beza's Latin version of the Greek and Stephanus's edition of the Latin Vulgate. Both of these versions were extensively referred to, as the translators conducted all discussions amongst themselves in Latin. F.H.A. Scrivener identifies 190 readings where the Authorized Version translators depart from Beza's Greek text, generally in maintaining the wording of the Bishop's Bible and other earlier English translations.[115] In about half of these instances, the Authorized Version translators appear to follow the earlier 1550 Greek Textus Receptus of Stephanus. ...
All three footnotes above ([110], [114], and [115]) refer to TR-defender Dr. Scrivener's comments in his 1884 "Authorized Edition of the English Bible, 1611, its subsequent reprints and modern representatives". Page numbers available here --
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_james_bible
And all those tell us just how they texts used by KJV scholars superior to ones used by modern ones for say nasb/niv?
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 07-10-2012, 05:26 PM
Rippon Rippon is offline
10,000 Posts Club
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: God's Country
Posts: 14,452
Default

This is a little off the subject,but I think that aside from manuscripts,the KJV revisers manily used prior English versions and a bit from the Vulgate.

According to John Nelson and Royal Skousen in their work : How Much of The king James Bible Is William Tyndale's? :

"This shows an average of 83.7 per cent of the King James New Testament to be found in Tyndale,2.4 per cent in Coverdale,2.2 per cent in the Great Bible,4.7 per cent in the Geneva Bible,2.2 per cent in the Bishop's Bible,and 2.8 per cent to be original to the King James.Of the Old Testament books that tyndale translated,75.7 per cent of the King James is found in Tyndale,6.1 per cent in Coverdale,9.6 per cent in the Geneva bible,and 8.7 per cent is original to the King James."
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 07-10-2012, 05:33 PM
Yeshua1 Yeshua1 is offline
10,000 Posts Club
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Metro Detroit
Posts: 14,534
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rippon View Post
This is a little off the subject,but I think that aside from manuscripts,the KJV revisers manily used prior English versions and a bit from the Vulgate.

According to John Nelson and Royal Skousen in their work : How Much of The king James Bible Is William Tyndale's? :

"This shows an average of 83.7 per cent of the King James New Testament to be found in Tyndale,2.4 per cent in Coverdale,2.2 per cent in the Great Bible,4.7 per cent in the Geneva Bible,2.2 per cent in the Bishop's Bible,and 2.8 per cent to be original to the King James.Of the Old Testament books that tyndale translated,75.7 per cent of the King James is found in Tyndale,6.1 per cent in Coverdale,9.6 per cent in the Geneva bible,and 8.7 per cent is original to the King James."
That would make sense, as don't even KJVO folks see Tynsdale/geneva as being 'OK", from same bible family tree?
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 07-10-2012, 06:17 PM
Rippon Rippon is offline
10,000 Posts Club
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: God's Country
Posts: 14,452
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yeshua1 View Post
That would make sense, as don't even KJVO folks see Tyndale/Geneva as being 'OK", from same Bible family tree?
Yes,KJVO folks would say that the Wycliffe,Tyndale,Coverdale...etc. are all okay by them. It's strange that they don't give any credit to the NKJV.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 07-10-2012, 07:31 PM
Yeshua1 Yeshua1 is offline
10,000 Posts Club
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Metro Detroit
Posts: 14,534
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rippon View Post
Yes,KJVO folks would say that the Wycliffe,Tyndale,Coverdale...etc. are all okay by them. It's strange that they don't give any credit to the NKJV.
indeed, as doesn't the NKJV use SAMe greek/hebrew texts as KJV did?
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:38 AM.


The Fundamental Top 500   The Best Baptist Web Sites at Baptist411.com  
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Style Copyright: Wrestling Clique Wrestling Forum
Ad Management plugin by RedTyger
 
 

Web Hosting for BaptistBoard.com is provided by BaptistHost.net