KJV Translator's Work Lost

Discussion in '2003 Archive' started by LarryN, Nov 28, 2003.

  1. LarryN

    LarryN
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2003
    Messages:
    958
    Likes Received:
    0
    I have an often rehashed question for the KJVO's on this board:

    The original Autographs of Scripture are often dismissed by KJV-onlyists given the fact that, to the best of our knowledge, God hasn't Providentially preserved any of them.

    Does the fact that the original KJV translator's work (their documents, notes, etc.) also not exist (they have apparently been lost, or were not deemed worthy of keeping at the time), present any difficulties in your belief that the KJV is a perfect translation?

    If and when printed copies of the KJV differ (and differences have existed since the KJV was 1st printed), who is therefore to say which is the single correct rendering, without the original source material of the translators to refer back to?
     
  2. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    I understand that the ORIGINAL scripts of the AV 1611 were lost in a fire & had to be re-written by the translators. I don't have time right now to verify it, but perhaps someone else has the story handy.
     
  3. Ransom

    Ransom
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2000
    Messages:
    4,132
    Likes Received:
    0
    I know it's generally believed that the manuscript of the AV was probably destroyed in the Great Fire of London in 1666, but I've never heard that the translators rewrote it.

    The story doesn't ring true to me for a couple of reasons: first, 55 years after the fact most, if not all, of the translators were dead; second, what need is there of a manuscript after the Bible is in print?
     
  4. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    WHAT? God didn't miraculously preserve the handwritten document? Maybe THAT is why there were errors in every single printing of the KJV.

    And how those pesky Catholics got the Apochrypha in, too.

    Okay, enough dripping sarcasm. I find it a little too convenient for people saying the ORIGINAL AV (handwritten) was PERFECT, but that the printers then missed words or made mistakes . . THEN the PERFECT (handwritten) manuscripts disappear.

    Where's James Bond?
     
  5. Ransom

    Ransom
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2000
    Messages:
    4,132
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gee . . . that one paragraph makes it look like the KJV-onlyists have just taken an orthodox view of the preservation of Scripture (inerrant in the autographs, now lost, and copied faithfully but imperfectly by subsequent scribes) and applied it specifically and exclusively to the KJV, without a scrap of evidence.
     
  6. LarryN

    LarryN
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2003
    Messages:
    958
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thanks to everyone who has addressed my question (you're right on-target, of course). I'm seeing a distinct lack of KJVO-ist comments though.

    To any KJV-Onylists, I'll restate my question:

    In the absence of the original documents/manuscripts of the KJV translators, what serves as your "final authority" (as KJVO-ist William P. Grady would say)? Surely you won't claim that the multiplicity of printed copies serve as such. If so- which copy, and by what printer? Remember, differences (however minor) have existed since the KJV was first printed. Remember this too (from another KJV-Onlyist): "Things that are different are not the same."
     
  7. timothy 1769

    timothy 1769
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    1,323
    Likes Received:
    0
    Good question. Of course you're aware the total differences between the various KJV editions are around a couple of orders of magnitude smaller than the myriad variant readings present in our modern versions.

    Things that are a couple of orders of magnitude different are not really comparable.
     
  8. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,137
    Likes Received:
    320
    True and not only that, according to some sources those differences amomgst the KJV editions are also inerrant.

    HankD
     
  9. LarryN

    LarryN
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2003
    Messages:
    958
    Likes Received:
    0
    timothy 1769, I'm not sure if I'm reading your post correctly. Are you saying there's some margin of difference acceptable in God's Word, but that printed copies of the KJV meet that standard because they (and they alone, among Bible versions) fall within whatever margin of difference that may be?
     
  10. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,137
    Likes Received:
    320
    It probably is so because among the several incredulities of the KJVO are:

    Things which are different are not the same (unless it’s the several hundreds of “infallible” differences between the KJV revisions)

    They can hold the perfect and pure Word of God in their hands (but no one else could prior to 1605 in spite of God's promise).

    The MVs are the product of heretics (but not the 1611 KJV - with the Apocrypha - which is the product of Anglo-Catholic paedo-baptist priests of the Church of England who persecuted, imprisoned and killed our Baptist brethren).

    Here is a quote from http://www.touchet1611.org/KJVOFundamentals.html
    Unless of course you are one of the original translators of the 1611 KJB each of whom possessed strings of degrees from Roman and Anglo Catholic Universities and were all skilled (presumably by “the devil”) in the use of these tools and methods.

    And so and so forth...

    HankD
     
  11. Forever settled in heaven

    Forever settled in heaven
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2000
    Messages:
    1,770
    Likes Received:
    0
    n how many couple of orders of magnitude is "the total differences between the KJV editions" compared to word-perfect "inerrant"?
     
  12. Ransom

    Ransom
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2000
    Messages:
    4,132
    Likes Received:
    0
    LarryN said:

    Are you saying there's some margin of difference acceptable in God's Word

    "Read the KJV - Now 99% evil free!" [​IMG]
     
  13. LarryN

    LarryN
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2003
    Messages:
    958
    Likes Received:
    0
    [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG]
     
  14. LarryN

    LarryN
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2003
    Messages:
    958
    Likes Received:
    0
    Are there no KJVOnlyists able to give a serious reply to my question (from post #1 above, restated in post #6)?
     
  15. timothy 1769

    timothy 1769
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    1,323
    Likes Received:
    0
    timothy 1769, I'm not sure if I'm reading your post correctly. Are you saying there's some margin of difference acceptable in God's Word, but that printed copies of the KJV meet that standard because they (and they alone, among Bible versions) fall within whatever margin of difference that may be? </font>[/QUOTE]I'm not saying it's acceptable. We've debated around this issue before, I think there's around 135 or so significant word changes between the 1611 first printing our modern KJV editions. I think printing errors could easily account for the number and type of errors that have been pointed out so far. After all, it was a first edition. Other KJVO's have other ideas.

    I do think it's silly to try and compare this problem with the problem of the thousands of missing words/verses in the modern versions. Mountain, molehill.

    What KJV do I submit to? The one in my hands at the moment. That's not 100% rational and I don't really care. The general tenor of the scriptures teach humility and submission to authority with a distrust of our worldly wisdom. The KJV (and it's underlying texts) have the right pedigree and the solid providential confirmation of being the Word of God amongst Bible believers through the ages - it is the Word of God and I submit to it. End of story. The idea is riduculous that I'm somehow supposed to be the judge of scripture, deciding amongst thousands of variant readings to assemble my own personal "Word of God". I'd sooner just toss the whole thing out the window and do just as I jolly well pleased.
     
  16. timothy 1769

    timothy 1769
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    1,323
    Likes Received:
    0
    n how many couple of orders of magnitude is "the total differences between the KJV editions" compared to word-perfect "inerrant"? </font>[/QUOTE]1 couple. Nice point.
     
  17. timothy 1769

    timothy 1769
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    1,323
    Likes Received:
    0
    More like 99.98%, heh
     
  18. Ransom

    Ransom
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2000
    Messages:
    4,132
    Likes Received:
    0
    "The KJV - Now With 0.02% Words of Men" [​IMG]
     
  19. ScottEmerson

    ScottEmerson
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2002
    Messages:
    3,417
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't want to worship a God that is 99.98% true, for what it is worth.
     
  20. BrianT

    BrianT
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    3,516
    Likes Received:
    0
    Then don't worship the KJV. [​IMG]
     

Share This Page

Loading...