statement about KJV in 1730

Notice they said they pretend to find errors?

They are still doing that today. Pretending there are errors.

There are none.

 

In what is now archaic English the word "pretend" meant to "take upon ones self." Read the end of the quote - "no one thinks it is without errors."

 

Define "error".

Ed

 

"Pretend" is used in a bad sense here. The quote needs to be read in context. In fact, the following passage is quite funny! It can be found by searching on http://books.google.com

The story goes like this: A certain young preacher had "no more Discretion, than to waste a great Part of the Time allotted for his Sermon in Exceptions against the late Translation of several Words" (referring to the KJV).

The young preacher took exception to a number of words in the translation and gave three reasons why he thought a particular word was translated wrongly.

That evening the young preacher was informed by a "Dr. Kilby" who had been in the congregation: "that Word, for which he offered that poor Congregation three Reasons, why it ought to have been translated as he [the young preacher] said, he [Dr. Kilby] and others had considered all of them, and found Thirteen more considerable Reasons, why it was translated as now printed".

Dr. Richard Kilby was one of the translators of the King James version.

While it is admitted that the author (Johnson) wasn't KJVO, he was making a statement against those who took it upon themselves to correct the work of the translators of the KJV.

I think the application to this forum is quite clear.

A.F.

 

Explain these if there are no errors:

Matt. 28:1 In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.

The Sabbath does not end at dawn but at dusk. KJ should read In the late of the Sabbath................

John 1:17 For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.

The word "b"y in by Moses is a mistranslation and should read "through Moses." The law was given by God.


These are just two places where the KJ translators made mistakes or could have chosen better words ...

Does this negate the value of the KJV. No, but we must study carefully it and other translations.

Does this diminish God. No, it just shows that even with the best of intentions we humans make mistakes.

 

"Making mistakes" is not the same thing as "better renderings", however. Also, while I agree that "by" is a less than stellar rendering of 'dia' in John 1:17, as references Moses, the same must be said about the second usage of 'dia', in the rendering of "grace and truth came by Jesus Christ", in the same manner. Same preposition and case should equal same rendering, I'd say.

BTW, it is not "dusk" when the Hebrew day ends, but at sundown.

And I will note that Matt. 28:1 and some other locales read literally, "Sabbaths" for the word is plural, as well.

Matthew is not speaking technically, I suggest, but in the usual 'colloquial' sense, as one would normally use the word for "dawn". This is not any "proof-text" for a "Wednesday crucifixion", ignoring the wording of the three other Evangelists, especially John, where Mary arrives whle it is still dark, but beginning to lighten up toward the normal daylight hours!

Ed

 

With all due respect AF, your point is clear but the application is not.

First of all we do not know what word the young preacher was referring to and in what context. Second, your statement that the young preacher was "correcting the work..." is not a proven fact from the story as you are quoting. Third, it is not clear from your story that Dr. Kilby was in disagreement with the young preacher, it is possible that the Dr. was saying in effect "nice start pastor, look at all the other possibilities there are out there. Keep up the good work". For all we know, Dr. Kilby may have been in agreement with the young pastor on some or all of his points.

What I'm saying is conjecture, same can be said of what I think you are implying. A little bit of scholarship would have a much greater impact in making your point, if I understand it correctly, in my opinion.

PS I did not read the story from the link you provided, I'm only commenting from what you have posted.

 

Well, yeah! But scholarship might get in the way of 'proving' an actual point, as opposed to conjecture, which by its very fluid nature, a la a 'conspiracy theory', cannot be so easily 'disproved', for it manages to present a moving target, and 'hide' behind its own 'conjecture'.

Ed

 

To quote myself: " I think the application to this forum is quite clear."

Perhaps it is unclear what my opinion on the application to this forum actually is! Are you guessing? I was having a little fun by being vague on that point.

I strongly encourage you to read the actual passage. My abstraction was an attempt to save quoting the entire passage.

Since the work appears to be in the public domain I will post a larger portion:

Some of our Church also would pretend to find Errors and Mistakes in it. (and no Body thinks it wholly free) Mr. Walton in the life of Bishop Sanderson gives a remarkable Instance of this: Dr. Kilby, an excellent Critick in the Hebrew Tongue, Professor of it in the University, a perfect Grecian, and one of the Translators, going into the country, took Mr. Sanderson to bear him Company. Being at the Church on Sunday, they found the young Preacher to have no more Discretion, than to waste a great Part of the Time allotted for his Sermon in Exceptions against the late Translation of several Words, (not excepting such a Hearer as Dr. Kilby) and shew'd Three Reasons why a particular Word should have been otherwise translated. The Preacher in the Evening was invited to the Doctor's Friend's House, where, after some other Conference, the Doctor told him, he might have preached more useful Doctrine, and not have fill'd his Auditors Ears with needless Exceptions against the late Translation; and for that Word, for which he offered that poor Congregation three Reasons, why it ought to have been translated as he said, he and others had considered all of them, and found Thirteen more considerable Reasons, why it was translated as now printed, And told him, if his Friend, (Mr. Sanderson) then attending him, should prove Guilty of such indescretion, he should forfeit his Favour. To which Mr. Sanderson said, he hop'd he should not.

(I transcribed this from the image on the site mentioned above.)


I think a point of the passage was that the young preacher wasted the congregation's (and his own) time on finding fault with the translation rather than preaching on some useful doctrine. That was compounded by the young preacher's lack of understanding of the subject and his "indescretion".

I suppose that young preacher was familiar with the taste of his own toes...

 

Thank you EdSutton for being scholarly and loving in all of your comments.

 

Thomas15: what kind of additional "scholarship" would you require in this instance? I read the context of the quote. I considered the implications of the material. I reported my opinion back to the group.