King James "Translators "

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by Rippon, Nov 24, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,410
    Likes Received:
    328
    I think they have received too much credit for their efforts . I am referencing my comments specifically regarding the New Testament . I know some talented and godly scholars met to forge the "new translation" which was to make the existing one better . They were supposed to use the Bishops Bible as their baseline . ( I read that in 1650 a Conn. preacher was using that version in his sermons.) But the unmentioned Geneva Bible was the main one they consulted . William Tyndale's name wasn't supposed to be brought up yet his influence was the grand force behind their work . Some estimate that up to 94% or so of the translation of those 27 books were just lifted from his work . but that is about as much "work" as the ESV "translators" used in revising the RSV up to their specs .

    I have posted some of the differences between the text of Tyndale and that of the KJV -- but the difference is minimal . Some claim that the KJV Bible translation was such a seminal event -- what value to they place on all of Tyndale's effort -- even to the point of death ? Was it just a coincidence that an overwhelming amount of the KJV text was W.T's exact words ? So the KJV is 100% inspired in your estimation ? Was Tyndale's New Testamentjust 94% inspired ? I jest . Only the original autographs were God-breathed , no translation merits that desgnation .

    I just want some KJV'ers to interact . I had a Thanksgiving meal with one , but he turned out to be harmless in the face of some facts .
     
  2. mcdirector

    mcdirector
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2005
    Messages:
    8,292
    Likes Received:
    10
    Welcome back!

    Thanks for the information about the translators. I haven't done much research on them. Now I'm wondering how much is out there.
     
  3. Keith M

    Keith M
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,024
    Likes Received:
    0
    The Geneva Bible actually was not the main version translators of the KJV consulted, except possibly to avoid the readings found in the Geneva Bible. The KJV translators stuck very closely to their goal of revising the Bishops' Bible without following the readings found in the Geneva Bible. Here are some examples...

    In John 1:1-5 translators followed neither the reading of the Geneva nor the Bishops'. The KJV translators sustituted "he" for "it" found in both the Bishops' and the Geneva.

    Bishops': In the begynnyng was the worde, & the worde was with God: and that worde was God. The same was in the begynnyng with God. All thynges were made by it: and without it, was made nothyng that was made. In it was lyfe, and the lyfe was the lyght of men, And the lyght shyneth in darkenesse: and the darknesse comprehended it not.

    Geneva: In the beginning was that Word, and that Word was with God, and that Word was God. This same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by it, and without it was made nothing that was made. In it was life, and that life was the light of men. And that light shineth in the darkenesse, and the darkenesse comprehended it not.

    1611 KJV: In the beginning was the Word, & the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darknesse, and the darknesse comprehended it not.

    Another example where the KJV translators followed the reading of the Bishops' Bible more closely is found in John 3:16 where KJV translators chose "gave" over "hath given."

    Bishops': For God so loued the worlde, that he gaue his only begotten sonne, that whosoeuer beleueth in hym, shoulde not perishe, but haue euerlastyng lyfe.

    Geneva: For God so loued the worlde, that hee hath giuen his onely begotten Sonne, that whosoeuer beleeueth in him, should not perish, but haue euerlasting life.

    1611 KJV: For God so loued ye world, that he gaue his only begotten Sonne: that whosoeuer beleeueth in him, should not perish, but haue euerlasting life.

    In Acts 12:4 KJV translators again followed the reading of the Bishops' Bible rather than the better reading found in the Geneva Bible, using "Easter" rather than "Passover." (As an aside, this is the only verse in the KJV where the translators didn't use the preferable "Passover" rather than "Easter.")

    Bishops': And when he had caught hym, he put hym in pryson also, and delyuered hym to foure quaternions of souldiers to be kept, intendyng after Easter to bryng hym foorth to the people.

    Geneva: And when he had caught him, he put him in prison, and deliuered him to foure quaternions of souldiers to be kept, intending after the Passeouer to bring him foorth to the people.

    1611 KJV: And when hee had apprehended him, hee put him in prison, and deliuered him to foure quaternions of souldiers to keepe him, intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people.

    Actually, there are many, many more places where the KJV translators more closely followed the readings of the Bishops' Bible than that of the Geneva Bible. It is likely true that they consulted both the Geneva and the Bishops', but claiming that the Geneva was the main translation they used is apparently quite unfounded.
     
  4. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,574
    Likes Received:
    10
    Seems the AV men used an ECLECTIC MIX, same as modern translators do, with existing translations diligently considered in that mix.
     
  5. Keith M

    Keith M
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,024
    Likes Received:
    0
    WHAT??? The Textus Receptus wasn't a single manuscript??? (Ouch, gotta get my tongue out mf my cheek!)
     
  6. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yep,
    "Textus Receptus" is plural. Also, KJV is plural, I know I have three
    different copies of the KJVs in my house.

    In the King James Version (KJV) of 1611 you have to look in
    the New Testament at the FIRST PAGE of Matthew to find
    a margin note explainging that the KJV Translators had multiple
    versions of the Textus Receptus.

    Matthew 1:11 (KJV1611 Edition):
    And
    ||Iosias begate Iechonias and his brethren,
    about the time they were caried away to Babylon.

    Margin note:
    || Some read, Iosias begate Iakim, and Iakim begate Iechonias

    So the translators of the KJV had a Textus Receptus that
    read:And Iosias begate begate Iakim, and Iakim begate
    Iechonias and his brethren,
    about the time they were caried away to Babylon.
     
  7. Eliyahu

    Eliyahu
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2005
    Messages:
    4,762
    Likes Received:
    0
    How many percentage of Tyndale's translation was used in KJV is depending on how to classify the words, vocabularies, and sentences, and I notice someone saying 70%, 75%, 85%, and 94% as Rippon says.

    In detail, we need to know what and how they are, and my understanding is that the following words were invented by W Tyndale and were used by KJV as well:

    Brokenhearted, Passover, Scapegoat, Firstfruits, Firstborn, Days of Unleavened Bread, Burntoffering, Let there be light, Tabernacle, .....

    Obviously William Tyndale was a great man of God, in Jesus Christ, which KJV translators recognized.
     
    #7 Eliyahu, Nov 24, 2006
    Last edited: Nov 24, 2006
  8. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    While a few may use the 90% from Tyndale in referring to the whole Bible, it is usually used only for the New Testament. Since Tyndale was killed before he was able to translate a good portion of the Old Testament (Ezra to Malachi), the 90% could not accurately apply to the while Bible. The 90% figure is still high for just the New Testament.

    Even if the accurate percentage was more like 60 to 70% coming from Tyndale's, it is still a large percentage and confirms Rippon's point that the KJV translators are sometimes given too much credit.

    In his introduction to his modern-spelling edition of Tyndale's 1526 N. T., KJV-only author John W. Sawyer referred to Tyndale as "the primary translator of the KJV" (p. 6). William Bradley, another KJV-only author, identified Tyndale as "the principal translator" of the KJB (PURIFIED SEVEN TIMES, p. 51).

    Surely KJV-only advocates would say that the primary or principal translator of the KJV was guided by the Holy Spirit. Would KJV-only advocates claim that the Holy Spirit's guiding or illuminating of William Tyndale was good only 70% of the time?
     
  9. Eliyahu

    Eliyahu
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2005
    Messages:
    4,762
    Likes Received:
    0
    Though Tyndayle died in the midst of translating OT after he finished NT, he had a good understanding on the proper wordings for OT already and some have have been known then.
    The fact that KJV translators adopted most of them is a credit for KJV. If there were NIV translators then, they wouldn't have adopted them, but may have sided on Roman Catholic condemning Tyndale's.
    But if the claim is that KJV was inspired to have its own wordings by Holy
    Spirit, it might have forgotten such historical fact.
     
  10. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    There are at least four books about the Church of England translators of the KJV, and there are a number of others with some information about them [for example, some of the histories of the English Bible]. In addition, individual articles can be found about many of the KJV translators in the standard reference work entitled DICTIONARY OF NATIONAL BIOGRAPHY.

    McClure, Alexander. KJV TRANSLATORS REVIVED.
    Nicolson, Adam. GOD'S SECRETARIES: THE MAKING OF THE KING JAMES BIBLE. New York: HarperCollins, Publishers, 2003.
    Opfell, Olga. THE KING JAMES BIBLE TRANSLATORS. Jefferson, NC: McFarland, 1982.
    Paine, Gustavus. THE MEN BEHIND THE KJV. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1959.
     
  11. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,410
    Likes Received:
    328
    I just wanted to say that about 4 percent of the form of the KJV came from the Bishops' Bible . The latter was not consulted too much by the KJV men .

    Also , Acts 12:4 in the KJV follows Tyndale . John 1 : 1-5 is substantially Tyndale . With slight variations , John 3:16 is Tyndale's wording . The latter had "only son " instead of " only begotten " and other minor differences . The Bishop's Bible was heavily dependant on Tyndale's version .
     
  12. mcdirector

    mcdirector
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2005
    Messages:
    8,292
    Likes Received:
    10
    Thanks Logos!

    I found two of those at CBD and some more that were interesting enough to order. Not all exactly on this topic, but . . . :tongue3:

    One Bible Only?
    by Roy Beacham

    God's Secretaries: The Making of the King James Bible
    by Adam Nicolson

    In The Beginning
    by Alister McGrath

    A User's Guide to Bible Translations: Making the Most of Different Versions
    by David Dewey

    Origin of the Bible (Revised Edition)
    by F.F. Bruce

    The Canon of Scripture
    by F.F. Bruce

    The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?
    by F.F. Bruce

    The Formation of the Christian Biblical Canon
    by Lee Martin McDonald

    King James, His Bible, and its Translators
    by Laurence M. Vance

    Facts on the King James Only Debate
    by John Ankerberg, John Weldon

    The King James Version In History
    by Kenneth L. Bradstreet
     
  13. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    It depends somewhat on how you look at it. The first rule given the KJV translators stated: "The ordinary Bible read in the Church, commonly called the Bishops' Bible, to be followed, and as little altered as the Truth of the original will permit."

    This rule suggests that the text of the Bishops' Bible was the starting point for the KJV translators. There are many renderings in the 1611 KJV that came from the Bishops' Bible. Of course, since the Bishops' Bible was a revision of the Great Bible, and the Great Bible was a revision of the 1537 Matthew's Bible which was based mostly on Tyndale's, many renderings in the Bishops' Bible were first used in an earlier translation. That fact does not mean and prove that the Bishops' Bible was not the actual source that the KJV translators from which the KJV translators took the renderings. The Bishops' Bible and also the Geneva Bible were very likely the two main sources from which the KJV obtained many of its renderings that were actually first found in Tyndale's.

    According to two scholars [Ward Allen and Edward Jacobs] who examined the pre-1611 Bibles, the KJV translators "in revising the text of the synoptic Gospels in the Bishops' Bible, owe about one-fourth of their revisions, each, to the Genevan and Rheims New Testaments" (COMING OF THE KING JAMES GOSPELS, p. 29).
     
  14. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,410
    Likes Received:
    328
    Regardless of what the preface and notes to the reader said -- the Geneva Bible was not to be mentioned and , of course , William Tyndale's name was not to be brought up . It was not polically expedient to bring those subjects up even though true credit was not given .Therefore , in spite of what Miles Smith said , in fact , the Geneva Bible and to a greater degree the Tyndale Bible were consulted much more than any other sources . Direct wordings from a number of the seven or so translations which came after Tyndale's were on a limited basis . William Tyndale's Translation was used in an overwhelming fashion .

    I tend to think that aside from those limited borrowings from the versions between the Tyndale Bible and all others before the KJV --- the KJV "translators" basically paraphrased Tnydale when they were not quoting him word-for-word .
     
  15. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,872
    Likes Received:
    3
    I totally agree, based upon what I have read on this subject.
     
  16. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,872
    Likes Received:
    3
    Yes, Keith, the Geneva Bible probably wasn't the main version the AV revisionists consulted.

    However, it is the Geneva Bible that is quoted exclusively several times in the AV's preface "...To the Reader".
     
  17. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,872
    Likes Received:
    3
    I just finished Wide As The Waters: The Story of the English Bible and the Revolution It Inspired by Benson Bobrick recently.

    It is aprroximately one-third about the AV revisionists and King James; one-third about Wycliffe and Tyndale; and one-third other translators (Coverdale, Rogers, etc) and the English socio-political influences. I highly recommend it!
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Loading...