To KJVOs, Does The Translator notes matter

The KJB is not a translation. [EDIT]

 

[EDIT quotation from above] OH, wait didn't Joseph Smith dig the golden plates up from the ground somewhere in NY and then translate them with the Urim and Thummim spectacles?

HankD

 

and he plagiarized the KJV in the process of his grand hoax.

 

To answer the question of the OP it will vary from one KJVO to the next.
Some say they were just being humble or that they did not know they were being inspired etc.

But in any case, the answer is: No it does matter, in fact for most KJVO people no fact matters.
They start with KJVO and then accept or reject facts accordingly.

That is not meant to stir up problems, it is just an honest observation.

 

Your denigration of those who are settled on the word of God lacks rectitude.

When one invents a theory of sorts and then goes to great extents to establish their ideals as facts in the basis for opinion. But when a subject matter is tried to the same extent or greater and is PROVEN "tried and true" then those ideals are thwarted off into oblivion except where they are accepted by a group of idealists.

If I were to ask you for the word of God, your answer might very well be, as experience tells, a plethora of English versions coupled with many other versions translated into various languages; each having discrepencies within their pages and relying upon theists for their record of accuracy. Much can be said as to what is acceptable or profane.

Now, if you were to ask most "KJVO's", why, they are settled upon the word of God, as your type is obsessed with the attempts to overthrow their stand. We know what the word of God IS and ISN'T.

The KJB translators humbly approached the word with a determination to provide a clear translation for all ENGLISH speaking peoples. That has been accomplished due to its being perfectly definable , devoid of the nuances of the ever-changing vernacular of societies as society decays into apostacy.

Many would otherwise be carried away into the ultimate end of a society so easily effected by such idealologies of corrupt minds, although well-meaning, yet still corrupt in their ideals.

These men who translated the KJB did so under command with their character considered above their academic abilities, but not apart from those abilities. They espoused their efforts as humbly as should be as addressed in the Preface of the KJB. This practice is the epitomy of humility, and is apart from the arrogancy so often associated with those who promote modern versions AGAINST the KJB.

Not one "KJVO" has ever said that modern versions are completely devoid of the word of God, as the MV proponents would like to paint them, but instead have stood on the word of God being intact in the KJB.

"Which one?" the modernists ask, but in complete arrogancy.

The answer still lies within the confines of definability. Definability is this:
1. Literally, that may be limited, or have its limits ascertained. Hence, capable of having its extent ascertained with precision; capable of being fixed and determined. The extent of the Russian empire is hardly definable. The limits are hardly definable.
2. That may be defined or described; capable of having its signification rendered certain, or expressed with certainty or precision; as definable words.
3. That may be fixed, determined or ascertained; as, the time or period is not definable.
Need I say more?:godisgood:

 

I'd really like to agree with you on this point, sal, but I can't. "KJVO"ers may not say the exact words that "modern versions are completely devoid of the word of God", but I've heard plenty of teaching where a "KJVO"er says that since this verse or that verse in a MV isn't exactly like the KJV, it means that that particular MV isn't the word of God. Not exact words to be sure, but the meaning is the same. I daresay you'd never hear some of the "KJVO"ers I've listened to so much as vaguely hint that the Word of God is found in a MV. Frankly, I'm surprised that you suggested it.

 

double post, sorry!

 

My impression from previous interaction with the quoted poster is that he believes that MV's contain the Word of God like manner as commentary does.

 

When I first joined the BB in 2001 there were what I and others called Radical KJVO adherents posting on the BB.

They did not believe the translators notes were inspired but they did not believe that the translators had introduced any flaws into the English text of the AV.

They believed that the 1611 English corrects the Greek and Hebrew.

They believed in a kind of "double-inspiration" and "advanced revelation" which only one of their leaders is/was able to discern.

They believed that the 1611 is a perfect English text without error.

They did not know that the Apocrypha was included in the 1611 First Edition of the AV or that the translators had Apocryphal readings in the list of "Daily Scripture Readings" and Scripture cross references (in the body of the text).

They did not know that the 1611 First Edition contained footnotes of alternative translations of various words and passages provided by the translators.

And many other things.

They had a battle cry "Whatever is different is not the same" until they found out about the several editions and revisions of the AV.

There were several other beliefs (most of which were shattered) and various war-cries.

Many were vulgar and venemous in their insults.
One individual posted page after page of eternal perdition upon our heads.

On the other hand, some of them responded positively to the corrections and challenges they were given and became more moderate in their views.


HankD

 

No, not to me. It doesn't matter that they were Church of England either.

From the title: "To KJVOs, Does The Translator notes matter?" The notes matter. However, the translation is the text, not the notes.

A.F.

 

While I fully agree with your second statement above I disagree with the first.

Mocking the honest opinion of a brother in Christ is wrong. It has no place in a discussion between Christians.

If I have ever done such a thing here please bring it to my attention so that I may beg forgiveness!

A.F.

 

The KJV translators considered their marginal notes to be an important part of their work. In the General Preface to his commentary, Adam Clarke observed: "Our conscientious translators, not being able in several cases to determine which of two meanings borne by a word, or which of two words is found in different copies, should be admitted into the text, adopted the measure of receiving both, placing one in the margin and the other in the text, thus leaving the reader at liberty to adopt either, both of which in their
apprehension stood nearly in the same authority. On this very account the marginal readings are essential to our version, and I have found, on collating many of them with the originals, that those in the margin are to be preferred to those in the text in the proportion of at least eight to ten" (I, p. 21). Clarke indicated that those editions of the KJV that omitted the marginal notes of the KJV translators were leaving out an essential part of their work. Glenn Conjurske also pointed out that the marginal notes “formed an integral part of the King James Version of 1611” (Olde Paths, Oct., 1992, p. 227).

 

Hmm,Clarke preferred the marginal reading to the text 80% of the time.I do agree with him that the marginal notes are a critical part of the translation.Without those notes we are deprived of much of the King James translation.Perhaps many or most KJVO-proponents have not really been getting the full benefit of their favorite version.

 

It would seem that Clarke is mistaken. The translators made a choice. They put the choice in the text. They then put the unchosen word in the margin.

This, of course, ignores the fact than only a part of the notes have the function of presenting an alternative reading. Many of the notes represent only the literal meaning of the original language where the text is the translation of an idiom.

A.F.

 

Can you document that the majority of the KJV translators always supported the reading put in the text? What if in some cases, only one translator more supported the reading put in the text than the reading that was put in the margin? What if in some cases, it was only a majority of the group of twelve that went over the translating that made the choice of which word was put in the text and which in the margin. What if one or both of the two co-editors Miles Smith and Thomas Bilson was or were in some cases the ones who decided which word was put in the text and which in the margin. At least two KJV translators are reported to have claimed that readings in the text agreed upon by the KJV translators were changed by bishops. There may be even a few cases where the word that the KJV translators had agreed upon for the text was moved to the margin by Archbishop Richard Bancroft and Bancroft put his personal choice in the text. One such example could be Acts 1:20.

Gustavus Paine maintained that Miles Smith, final editor of the KJV with Thomas Bilson, “protested that after Bilson and he had finished their editing, Bishop Bancroft made fourteen more changes.” He gave as an example Bancroft's insistence on using "the glorious word bishopric even for Judas in Acts 1:20" (Men Behind the KJV, p. 128). Paine added: “The fact that Smith was the one to protest Bancroft’s amendments suggests that he stood against both Bilson and Bancroft in such matters as the importance of bishoprics” (Ibid.).

 

Dr Bob, I certainly meant no respect to the very fine translation of the KJV.
It is just that I have had some rather frustrating conversations recently with KJVO proponents where I have been told that a) it is KJB, and also that any place that the KJV has no support in the manuscript tradition that there must have been a manuscript at SOME point that matched the KJV.
To me this is ignoring the facts.