"God's Word" before 1611

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by ktn4eg, Dec 9, 2004.

  1. ktn4eg

    ktn4eg
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2004
    Messages:
    3,517
    Likes Received:
    1
    Let me state at the outset that I prefer using the KJV and believe that it is overall the most reliable translation that is generally availible today. I even wrote a "tract" that went into great detail about why I believe the word "baptism" was a good translation by the KJV translators. (I think that the tract may still be available on the "Plains Baptist Challenger" and/or the "Tabernacle Baptist Church," Lubbock, TX website.)

    On the other hand, I am not an ardent KJVO advocate for many of the reasons that are mentioned in other threads.

    My basic question to die-hard KJVO proponents is this: Since "faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God" (Romans 10:17), was there a "Word of God" in English before 1611?

    If there was not a "Word of God," how then did people get saved prior to 1611?

    If there was a "Word of God" prior to 1611, what was that "Word of God" called, and why would there be a need for another "Word of God" (i.e., the KJV)?

    Comments?
     
  2. AVL1984

    AVL1984
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=../ubb/avl1984.jpg>

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2002
    Messages:
    6,932
    Likes Received:
    3
    In reality, ktn, there was no need for another translation. It, in part, was King James attempt to remove all hints of Catholicism from England, and to promote further the Anglican Church. I don't see how it remedied anything, though, as it still carried many of the practices of the Catholics over into the KJV anyhow. The only thing that I can see that it really did is to "update" the English into the venacular of the day, though some of the translations of words (given in other threads ad nauseam) were incorrect. Still, I believe it to be a reliable translation/update, as are the NASB, the NIV, et al.
     
  3. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    The AV translators called " even the meanest translations" the WOG.
     
  4. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    ktn4eg, I have asked this question tens of times and I finally received two answers from those who finally quit ignoring my posts. They were:

    1. I didn't live back then, so how would I know.

    2. The "relatives" of the King James Bibles were all good Bibles (I'm assuming they meant Bishop's and others the King James translators used.)

    But, when faced with a follow up question to number 2 I was ignored.

    My follow up question was. Why did the King James need to be translated, if we already had a perfect Bible in the English language.

    By the way, what are YOUR throughts on the NKJV, since it was translated from the Textus Receptus?
     
  5. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    No translation NEEDED to be made (i.e. correcting some terrible wrong) after an early English like Tyndale.

    But as English evolved from late Middle into early Modern English there were dramatic changes in word, spelling, use, etc. Geneva, Great, Bishops, Douay, AV, then a variety of revisions of the AV until the language stabilized about 1770.

    After 100 years it was obvious that the revisions SHOULD have continued. As more Greek texts were unearthed further revisions were done. These WERE needed to update accuracy as much as to update language (RSV, ASV1901).

    The modern revisions again were not NEEDED, but desired to make the language flow or employ different translation techniques (dynamic instead of the traditional formal equivalence). NASB updated the ASV; NRSV update the RSV.

    But no idea as why the great number of new ones today. Certainly not NEEDED. (ESV, Holman, even the NIV, TEV, etc etc)
     
  6. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    Dr. Bob, one answer. Money. Profit.

    Is this bad? Not necessarily, people have to make a living. Some do it by preaching, some do it by digging ditches and some by printing and selling Bibles.

    WOuldn't you agree that America's capitalistic society has had an input on the number of translations?

    Look at the NKJV. A great translation. But, it is using a marketing strategy of going after the King James "preferred" with a new translation using the Textus Receptus. Is this wrong? No. Not in my opinion. NIV used their own marketing schemes.

    What I think is going overboard severely is what I call "Theme" Bibles. The student's bible for this. The mother's bible for that. The drug addict's Bible. The survivor's Bible. Blah, blah, blah.

    In some cases, this might be considered okay since commentary is directed towards the "Theme".

    Honestly, it would probably be better to write a Christian oriented book containing scriptures about the subject, but that isn't the "selling" item.

    Is this right? Well, its probably pushing the limits.

    But, my bottom line is that Americans (and other countries) are now open to free enterprise. The number of NEW translations seems to be in direct relationship with our society. Right or wrong, I think that is your answer.
     
  7. rsr

    rsr
    Expand Collapse
    <b> 7,000 posts club</b>
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    10,077
    Likes Received:
    102
    "Honestly, it would probably be better to write a Christian oriented book containing scriptures about the subject, but that isn't the 'selling' item."

    While may be true that there are too many new translations coming down the pike, I don't regret it too much. I'd rather have another Bible than another Tim LaHaye book or a "Prayer of Jabez" any time.

    It also is worthwhile to note that the revolution sparked by Tyndale created a multitude of versions that culminated with the KJV. And it is illuminating to note that history is littered with other translations that have been consigned to the dustbin of history and theology.

    "O Thou great governour and parent of universal nature - who manifestest thy glory to the blessed inhabitants of heaven - may all thy rational creatures in all the parts of thy boundless dominion be happy in the knowledge of thy existence and providence, and celebrate thy perfections in a manner most worthy of thy nature and perfective of their own!"

    — The beginning of the Lord's Prayer, by Edward Harwood, "A Liberal Translation of the New Testament; being An Attempt to translate the Sacred Writings with the same Freedom, Spirit, and Elegance, With which other English Translations from the Greek Classics have lately been executed ... with select Notes, Critical and Explanatory," 1768.

    And Alexander Campbell edited a NT that attempted to rid the Scriptures of Calvinism in "The Sacred Writing of the Apostles and Evangelists of Jesus Christ, Commonly Styled The New Testament. Translated from the Original Greek," 1826.

    While polemical in his Arminianism, Campbell has some very modern things to say about translations.

    "But this constant mutation in a living language, will probably render new translations, or corrections of old translations, necessary every two or three hundred years. For although the English tongue may have changed less during the last two hundred years, than it ever did in the same lapse of time before: yet the changes which have taken place since the reign of James I., do now render a new translation necessary. For if the King's translators had given a translation every way faithful and correct, in the language then spoken in Britain; the changes in the English language which have since been introduced, would render that translation, in many instances, incorrect. The truth of this assumption will appear from a few specifications: ..."

    " It is probable that a new translation into our language will never again be undertaken by public authority. The people would not now submit to any that would be imposed upon them by such authority, and they will not agree among themselves to select persons, in whose judgment and fidelity they might repose confidence. Individuals will occasionally make their corrections and amendments, and the number of translations may greatly increase; until, at length, that obtains, whose merits shall give it the ascendant. ..."

    " We would also remind the same class of readers, that an intimate acquaintance with the Septuagint Greek of the Old Testament, is of essential importance in translating the New. The seventy Hebrews who translated their own scriptures into the Greek language gave to that translation the idiom of their vernacular tongue. Their translations, if I may so speak is a sort of Hebrew Greek. The body is Greek, but the soul is Hebrew, and, in effect, it comes to this, that, as we have no other Hebrew by which to understand the Hebrew scriptures, but the Hebrew of the Old Testament; so, we have no Greek by which to understand the apostolic writings, but the Greek of the Jewish and Christian Prophets. The parallelism is so nearly exact, that it subtracts but little from it to allow, that there is much advantage in having a correct knowledge of the Greek classics. The Septuagint being read for nearly three centuries prior to the Christian era, in all the synagogues of the Hellenistic Jews, and being generally quoted by our Lord and his Apostles, must have especially affected the idiom of all the inspired writings of the Christian Apostles; consequently, incomparably more regard should be paid to the Septuagint, than to the classic use of Greek terms. ..."

    " 'It has been said, that the introduction of different translations tends to unsettle men in their principles, particularly with regard to the authority of sacred writ, which, say they, is made to speak so variously in these productions. For my part, I have not discovered that this is, in any degree, the effect. The agreement of all the translations, as to the meaning, in every thing of principal consequence, makes their differences, when properly considered, appear as nothing. They are but like the inconsiderable variations in expression, which different witnesses, though all perfectly unexceptionable, employ in relating the same fact. They rather confirm men's faith in the scripture, as they show, in the strongest light, that all the various ways, which men of discordant sentiments have devised, of rendering its words, have made no material alteration, either on the narrative itself, or on the divine instructions contained in it. People are at no loss to discover, that the difference among interpreters lies chiefly in this, that one renders the account of things, which the book exhibits, more intelligible, more perspicuous, or even more affecting than another. These differences are, I acknowledge, of great moment to readers; they are such, as may show one version to be greatly superior to another, in point of use; yet as they are all compatible with justness of representation, in every thing essential to the historical and didactic parts of the work, they are so far from affecting the credibility of the whole, that they serve not a little to confirm it.' "

    Pardon the length of the post, but I found it interesting.
     
  8. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    Interesting. Some strange birds in times past, eh?

    Present company excepted, of course! [​IMG] [​IMG]
     
  9. manchester

    manchester
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2004
    Messages:
    401
    Likes Received:
    0
    The KJV was not an attempt to remove "hints of Catholicism" and promote Anglicanism. To the contrary, it was an attack on our pro-democracy Baptist predecessors and their Geneva Bibles, which included study notes that supported disobedience to kings. The KJV rejected the Geneva Bible's translations in many areas and adopted the Roman Catholic Douay-Rheim Bible's translation in its place.
     
  10. ktn4eg

    ktn4eg
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2004
    Messages:
    3,517
    Likes Received:
    1
    Me again.

    In my initial posting that started this thread I made reference to a paper that I had written concerning the use of the word "baptism" (or "to baptize," etc.) in the KJV that had later been published in tract form. Since then I've found that if you go to

    http://www.tbaptist.com/aab/baptisminkjv.htm

    you'll find the text of this article/tract. [NOTE: The fact that it was published by Tabernacle Baptist Church, Lubbock, TX, shouldn't be construed as an endorsement by me of absolutely everything else they publish. I agree with some of their publications and disgree with other of their publications.]

    At any rate, in my reading of sources on (if you will) the "Life and Times of the KJV," that version had its share of critics when it first came out as well. While I'm not sure if there was a "Geneva Version Only" movement as such, the KJV did, for a variety of reasons, have its contemporary opponents too.

    When you examine the history of a lot of things that today are considered "masterpieces" by many, you'll find that when they first appeared on the scene, they too were subject to criticism by some folks. Many of Shakespeare's works orginally fared poorly among some literary critics of his day.

    And when at this time of the year many folks will listen to the beautiful choruses of Handel's "Messiah," maybe they aren't aware that he was often the recipient of much criticism in his day for having the nerve to stage its performances in public theaters and for using some musicians who weren't always, shall we say, "paragons of religious or moral purity."

    My point? Merely to state that just because someone or something receives criticism doesn't by itself PROVE anything. We would do well to also examine just WHO is doing the criticizing, WHAT exactly is it they are criticizing, and WHY are they criticizing it.
     
  11. Ben W

    Ben W
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2002
    Messages:
    8,868
    Likes Received:
    0
    The first translation of the Bible made available to the people was in Russian after the conversion of Prince Vladimir and the people of Kiev in 988.
     
  12. av1611jim

    av1611jim
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2002
    Messages:
    3,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ben; Tell that to the people of Italy. The Old Latin predates the Russian by centuries.
    FYI
    In His service;
    Jin
     
  13. av1611jim

    av1611jim
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2002
    Messages:
    3,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    BTW; Most Calvinists (pre-1611) were also pedobaptists. They vehemently persecuted the Ana-baptists in Geneva. [​IMG]

    In His service;
    Jim
     
  14. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    And so did the Anglicans. Don't forget the AV translators who were members of the Court of High Commission, and/or the Star Chamber.
     
  15. AVL1984

    AVL1984
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=../ubb/avl1984.jpg>

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2002
    Messages:
    6,932
    Likes Received:
    3
    Shhhhh! Roby, they don't want to remember that! It puts a stain on their "onlyist" view!
     
  16. av1611jim

    av1611jim
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2002
    Messages:
    3,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    AVL1984;
    What stain? It can be shown by some sources that the Church of England never baptized infants until the Presbyterians influenced Parliment, after James was dead and buried.
    You may want to peruse ktn4eg's link. Interesting stuff. Shoots your theory in the foot, methinks.
    Scroll to the bottom of the article and you will find tons of sources cited, therefore this link is not just some blip or desperate attempt to rescue something. That "something" never needed rescue in the first place. It has been misrepresented by the few who would pour disparity on the AV translators.
    In His service;
    Jim
     
  17. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    Here goes the ole' "The Church of England was a great church when the Bible was translated, it only went downhill later." tale. :eek: [​IMG]
     
  18. Scott J

    Scott J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    0
    According to the Church of England's 39 Articles of Religion (1563):

    Here's the link:

    http://mb-soft.com/believe/txc/thirtyni.htm

    I am not sure where the other article gets its info but it appears to be reading into the facts rather than citing them.
     
  19. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    Scott, you are exactly right. If you want to find an opinion, it CAN be found on the internet. Thanks for your post.
     
  20. Scott J

    Scott J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    0
    Woops... They became apostate after they authorized and institutionalized the KJV and outlawed the Geneva? ;) :D
     

Share This Page

Loading...