Did Tysdale And Geneva Bibles use same texts As KJV 1611?

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by JesusFan, Jun 1, 2011.

  1. JesusFan

    JesusFan
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2011
    Messages:
    6,356
    Likes Received:
    0
    If both version did...

    Why wouldn't they be considered to be equal to the KJV for English translations?
     
  2. glfredrick

    glfredrick
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    Messages:
    4,996
    Likes Received:
    0
    Because the KJV says right inside the front cover, "Authorized Version." :laugh: Never mind that the good king's translators borrowed over 75% of those former works... :wavey:
     
  3. TC

    TC
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2003
    Messages:
    2,225
    Likes Received:
    10
    William Tyndale used Erasmus's first edition 1516 Greek-Latin parallel for his 1526 New Testament. If I remember correctly, the Geneva used Erasmus's third edition.
     
  4. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    Tyndale's New Testament is usually regarded to have been translated from Erasmus's third edition of the Greek New Testament since it includes 1 John 5:7.

    Tyndale's Bible is on the KJV-only tree of good Bibles. Thomas Holland maintained that “Tyndale used the Traditional Text” (Crowned, p. 75). William Tyndale is correctly known as the father of our English Bible, and he is due much of the credit for many of the renderings in later English Bibles including the KJV. Kevin James maintained that Tyndale based his N. T. “on Erasmus’s third edition of the Greek New Testament (1522)“ (Corruption, p. 2). David Norton noted that Tyndale’s “care above all was for accuracy in representing the originals, then for clarity, lastly for fidelity to his sense of the proprieties of English grammar and vocabulary” (History, p. 26). D. A. Waite observed that "Tyndale was a great Bible translator who was martyred because of his Bible translation" (Defending the KJB, p. 48). An appendix in Waite's Defined KJB pointed out that Tyndale earned the title "Hero of the Reformation" (p. 1668). Lloyd Streeter described Tyndale as "one of the most spiritual and scholarly men who ever lived" (75 Problems, p. 19). In his introduction to his modern spelling reprint of Tyndale's 1526 New Testament, John Wesley Sawyer, a KJV-only advocate, noted that Tyndale "believed in God and Christ, and believed that the Bible was the very Word of God: that it needed to be in the hands of every person" (p. 10).

    James Son maintained that William Tyndale "approached the holy scriptures in awe and with the utmost reverence" (New Athenians,
    p. 76). David Cloud referred to “Tyndale’s masterly translation” and “Tyndale’s masterpiece” (Faith, pp. 472, 532). John Day observed: "Tyndale believed that Scripture alone, properly understood, would reveal to men and women--in their own language--what they should believe and how they should live" (Dictionary of Literary Biography, Vol. 132, p. 297). Conant maintained that Tyndale's writings "marked him out before all Christendom as a standard bearer in the cause of the Bible and the people against that of the Pope and priesthood" (English Bible, p. 152). Clebsch wrote: "Tyndale fashioned the spectacles through which generations of Englishmen read their Bibles" (England's Earliest Protestants, p. 197). Clebsch also called Tyndale's book A Pathway to the Holy Scripture "the magna carta of English Puritanism" (p. 167). Richard Lovett wrote: “The Bible of the English-speaking nations was very largely the work of one heroic, simple-minded, scholarly man, William Tyndale” (Printed English Bible, p. 14). David Daniels noted that “one man did more for the English Bible than any single person before or since: William Tyndale” (Answers, p. 24). David Lawton described Tyndale as “by far the greatest of all English Bible translators” (Faith, p. 62). Edmund and Bell noted: “The real translator of a large portion of the English Bible was William Tyndale” (Discussion, p. 112). Because so much of the KJV comes from Tyndale's Bible, Sawyer referred to Tyndale as "the primary translator of the KJV" (p. 6). William Bradley identified Tyndale as "the principal translator" of the KJB (Purified, p. 51). Tyndale’s Bible, was it from heaven or of men?
     
  5. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    the 1560 Geneva Bible

    The New Testament of the 1560 Geneva Bible is said to have been translated from the 1550 edition of the Greek New Testament edited by Stephanus.

    The 1560 Geneva Bible is in the KJV-only view's line of good Bibles. KJV-only advocates seem to want to link the KJV with the popular and loved Geneva Bible. Benson Bobrick maintained that the Geneva Bible "paid meticulous attention to the Greek and Hebrew originals" (Wide as the Waters, p. 175). Backus asserted that “their main Greek text for the New Testament was the 1550 text of Stephanus” (Reformed Roots, p. 13). Gergely Juhasz suggested that the Geneva translators “consulted the Complutensian Polyglot, Robert Estienne’s 1550 edition of the Greek New Testament, Theodore de Beze’s 1566 [1557] Latin translation of the New Testament, Sante Pagnini’s 1528 Latin translation of the Old Testamnet, and Bomberg’s Third Rabbinic Bible edited by Sebastian Munster” (Hamlin, KJB after, p. 112). The Geneva Bible translators could only consult the 1557 Latin New Testament of Beza since the second edition that included a Greek text had not yet been printed [1565].
     
  6. JesusFan

    JesusFan
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2011
    Messages:
    6,356
    Likes Received:
    0
    very informative...

    Still curious why those 2 Bibles not considered to be just as "inspired" as KJV is by the KJVO Christians?
     
  7. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    If any translation can be regarded as "inspired," there would seem to be no sound, scriptural basis for not accepting the 1560 Geneva Bible as having the same inspiration as the KJV.

    Since the KJV is a revision of the pre-1611 English Bibles such as Tyndale's and the Geneva Bible, by what different process was the KJV supposed to obtain some quality or characteristic that was not already present in those earlier English Bibles?
     
  8. JesusFan

    JesusFan
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2011
    Messages:
    6,356
    Likes Received:
    0
    i agree with you here..

    Seems that IF you buy into KJVP, that God was not involved at all in English Bibles until time of KJV, and than stopped helping any version after 1611!
     
  9. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    The actualy eclectic blend of Greek manuscripts that underly the AV1611 translation was lost and does not exist.

    I know some of the NKJV translators and they stated that they were faithful to that "lost" Greek text - they worked long and hard to "recreate" it as closely as possible BEFORE they began to update the AV1611 into 20th Century English.

    So to the op I would say "No" - Tyndale and Geneva and Douay/Rheims and Bishops did NOT use the same exact Greek eclectic blend that the AV1611 scholars did.
     
  10. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    I know that the underlying original language texts of the 1611 KJV has been considered an eclectic blend of several varying printed editions of those texts in that day because its English renderings do not match any one of those printed original language texts 100% of the time.

    Considering the fact that the 1611 edition of the KJV is more of a revision of the pre-1611 English Bibles than it is a new translation of the original language texts, I wonder if in many cases the KJV translators were picking and choosing from the pre-1611 English Bibles or other language translations instead of actually picking and choosing from different printed editions of the original language texts. Many think that the KJV translators mainly followed the 1598 Greek edition of the New Testament edited by Beza. Perhaps most of the places where the KJV seems to differ or vary from that edition could be because the KJV translators borrowed English renderings from pre-1611 English Bibles that were translated from the other printed editions of the Greek text in those places. In picking and choosing from the varying pre-1611 English Bibles, it could give the impression that the picking and choosing was from varying Greek texts instead if viewed totally from the viewpoint of translating.

    Since the KJV is both a revision and a translation, I think that it is very possible some of its seeming blend of original language texts comes from its being a revision.
     
  11. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    Some would suggest that the edition of the Greek text edited by Scrivener would present that text.

    D. A. Waite claimed: "The text which underlies our King James Bible was a text that Dr. Frederick Scrivener put out" (Central Seminary Refuted, p. 74). Waite also maintained that Scrivener’s Greek text is “the Received Text which has been handed down from generation to generation by the church” (Defending the KJB, p. 40). In its definition for Textus Receptus, one KJV-only book stated: “The editions of Scrivener in 1881 and thereafter represent the exact Greek text underlying the King James Version of the Bible and the preserved autographa” ((Brandenburg, Thou Shalt Keep Them, p. 13). David Sorenson wrote: “In 1894 Frederick Scrivener published an edition of the Received text which precisely reflected the King James translators. Alternately, this might be the perfect edition of the Received Text” (Sword of the Lord, April 29, 2011, p. 10). Edward F. Hills indicated that he favored the Greek text “published in 1881 by the Cambridge University Press under the editorship of Dr. Scrivener” (KJV Defended, p. 223). David Cloud also implied that he preferred this same 1881 Greek text (Bible Version Question/Answer, pp. 172-174). David Sorenson wrote: “Scriveners Greek Text of 1881 is a careful reflection of the text which underlays the King James Version” (God’s Perfect Book, p. 79). Kirk DiVietro wrote: “There can be no question that Scrivener’s text is as close to the King James Bible as any Greek text we know” (Cleaning-up, p. 220). DiVietro asserted: “A comparison of the King James Bible to the text of Scrivener shows that this text is the basis of the King James Bible” (Ibid.). DiVietro wrote: “It was produced after-the-fact in 1881 as the best estimate of what the King James translators actually translated” (Ibid.).
     
  12. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,872
    Likes Received:
    3
    I think it is very simply that some believe that there cannot be two (or more) sets of 'inspired' words, which kinda' makes sense. And the Tyndale (NT), Geneva Bible, and the KJV are quite different at some particular verses*; therefore, they cannot ALL be the only perfect translation. Things that are different are not the same. They could be good translations, but not perfect. Only one English text can represent God's words perfectly translated**.


    *I started several posts in the past showing some of those differences; check the BB archive, if you like, by Search Forums/Advanced Search for 'Threads started by user' franklinmonroe and look at the ones with "Differences in EETs" followed by a Scripture reference in the titles (which stands for Early English Translations).

    **However, I also demonstrate in several posts where the KJV actually translates a single Hebrew text (exactly the same from two separate places in the Old Testament) with slightly different English results. These posts usually have "or" between two words (being compared) followed with a "?" and a Scripture reference in the titles.
     
    #12 franklinmonroe, Jun 9, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 9, 2011

Share This Page

Loading...