Were these changes by KJV improvements?

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by Logos1560, Dec 5, 2006.

  1. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2

    According to a consistent application of KJV-only reasoning, the standard and principles for introducing changes and variations in the English Bible in 1611 should not be different than it was in 1560 or is today. Did the KJV seem to tone down, weaken, or strengthen any renderings in the pre-1611 English Bibles? Did the KJV make any changes that would be considered doctrinal changes in the renderings of the Bishops’ Bible of which it was a revision? Did the KJV add the name of God or omit it at any places when compared to the pre-1611 Bibles? A few examples will be listed to show the validity of the questions in this paragraph. Every pre-1611 English Bible that has a certain rendering is not always listed.


    Gen. 23:6 prince of God (Tyndale’s, Great, Geneva, Bishops’) mighty prince (KJV)
    Exod. 9:28 of God (Tyndale’s, Coverdale’s, Great, Bishops’) mighty (Geneva, KJV)
    Exod. 15:3 Jehovah is his name (Tyndale’s, Matthew’s) the LORD is his name (KJV)
    Exod. 23:17 Lord Jehovah (Tyndale’s, Matthew’s, Geneva) Lord GOD (KJV)
    Deut. 28:67 Who shall give me evening (Coverdale’s) Would God it were even (KJV)
    Jud. 6:22 Lord Jehovah (Tyndale’s, Matthew’s) Lord GOD (KJV)
    Jud. 20:10 villainy (Geneva) abomination (Bishops’) folly (KJV)
    1 Sam. 14:15 fear sent of God (Tyndale’s, Matthew’s) very great trembling (KJV)
    2 Sam. 20:20 God forbid, God forbid (Geneva, Bishops’) Far be it, far be it (KJV)
    1 Kings 1:31 God save (Coverdale’s, Geneva) I pray God (Bishops’) let (KJV)

    1 Kings 8:53 Lord Jehovah (Tyndale’s, Matthew’s) Lord GOD (KJV)
    2 Chron. 24:18 wrath of God (Bishops’) wrath (KJV)
    Neh. 2:3 God save (Coverdale’s, Matthew’s, Geneva, Bishops’) let (KJV)
    Job 6:23 tyrants (Great, Geneva, Bishops’) mighty (KJV)
    Job 15:20 tyrant (Geneva) tyrants (Bishops’) oppressor (KJV)
    Job 27:13 tyrants (Great, Geneva, Bishops’) oppressors (KJV)
    Job 36:14 whoremongers (Geneva) fornicators (Bishops’) unclean (KJV)
    Ps. 54:3 tyrants (Great, Geneva, Bishops’) oppressors (KJV)
    Ps. 74:8 dwelling place (Coverdale’s, Bishops’) synagogues (Geneva, KJV)
    Ps. 109:6 adversary (Geneva) Satan (KJV)
    S. of S. 8:6 flame of the LORD (Coverdale’s, Matthew’s, Great) vehement flame (Geneva, KJV)
    Isa. 13:11 tyrants (Great, Geneva) tyrant (Bishops’) terrible (KJV)
    Isa. 16:4 destroyer (Geneva, Bishops’) spoiler (KJV)
    Isa. 30:29 rock of Israel (Coverdale’s, Matthew’s) mighty one of Israel (KJV)
     
  2. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    How about 'passover' in Acts 12:4(Geneva Bible, 1599) to "Easter"(AV 1611 & all subsequent KJV editions)?
     
  3. Keith M

    Keith M
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,024
    Likes Received:
    0
    Those who have fallen prey to the KJVO myth often make the accusation that the translators of the MVs leave God out of the Bible. Apparently the KJV translators were guilty of doing the same thing in 2 Chronicles 24:18 and Song of Solomon 8:6 quoted above. Oh, I forgot - modern Bible translators cannot leave God out but it was okay for KJV translators to leave God out. How silly of me to forget that there is a double standard - one for the KJV and another for all other translations!

    The use of "Easter" in Acts 12:4 is definitely a translators error. The KJV translators used the more correct "Passover" in every occurrence of the original pascha except for this single passage. Whatever could they have been thinking?
     
    #3 Keith M, Dec 6, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 6, 2006
  4. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    Clearly, reasoning that advocates a KJV-only view depends on inconsistencies or double standards.

    Here are some N. T. examples of differences between the pre-1611 English Bibles and the KJV that would likely be considered doctrinal if found between the KJV and later translations:

    Matt. 3:11 in water (Tyndale’s, Coverdale’s, Great, Bishops’) with water (Geneva, KJV)
    Matt. 13:20 the word of God (Tyndale’s, Matthew’s) the word (Geneva, KJV)
    Matt. 18:26 besought him (Tyndale’s to Whittingham’s, Bishops’) worshipped him (Geneva, KJV)
    Matt. 18:26 Sir (Tyndale’s to Whittingham’s) Master (Geneva) Lord (Bishops’, KJV)
    Mark 14:62 power of God (Geneva, Bishops’) power (KJV)
    Luke 2:22 their purification (Tyndale’s, Matthew’s, Great) her purification (Geneva, KJV)
    Luke 2:33 his father (Tyndale’s to Bishops’ except Geneva) Joseph (Geneva, KJV)
    Luke 2:41 his father and mother (Tyndale’s, Matthew’s, Great) his parents (Geneva, KJV)
    Luke 23:40 damnation (Tyndale’s, Great, Bishops’) condemnation (Geneva, KJV)
    John 1:33 in water (Tyndale’s, Matthew’s, Great, Whittingham‘s) with water (Geneva, Bishops’, KJV)
    John 5:24 damnation (Tyndale’s, Great, Bishops’) condemnation (Geneva, KJV)
    John 14:2 dwelling places (Whittingham’s, Geneva, Bishops’)
    dwellings (Coverdale’s) mansions (Tyndale’s, KJV)
    Acts 7:20 acceptable unto God (Great, Geneva, Bishops’) exceeding fair (KJV)
    Acts 7:45 Joshua (Tyndale’s to Great) Jesus (Geneva, KJV)
    Acts 11:8 God forbid (Tyndale’s, Matthew’s, Geneva) Not so (Bishops’, KJV)
    Acts 16:31 Lord Jesus (Tyndale’s to Great) Lord Jesus Christ (Geneva, KJV)
    Acts 20:21 Lord Jesus (Tyndale’s to Great) Lord Jesus Christ (Geneva, KJV)
    Acts 28:31 Lord Jesus (Tyndale’s to Whittingham’s) Lord Jesus Christ (Geneva, KJV)
    Rom. 3:22 that believe on him (Great) that believe (Geneva, KJV)
    Rom. 8:1 damnation (Tyndale’s, Great, Bishops’) condemnation (Geneva, KJV)
    1 Cor. 1:6 Jesus Christ (Tyndale’s to Bishops’ except Cov.) Christ (Coverdale’s, KJV)
    Gal. 5:12 would (to) God (Tyndale’s to Bishops’) would (KJV)
    Gal. 5:22 faithfulness (Tyndale’s to Great) faith (Geneva, KJV)
    Eph. 2:2 children of unbelief (Tyndale’s to Great) children of disobedience (Geneva, KJV)
    1 Thess. 2:16 wrath of God (Tyndale’s to Bishops’ except Cov.) wrath (Coverdale’s, KJV)
    1 Thess. 4:2 Lord Jesus Christ (Tyndale’s to Whittingham’s) Lord Jesus (Geneva, KJV)
    1 Thess. 5:22 all kind of evil (Whittingham’s) all appearance of evil (Geneva, KJV)
    Tit. 1:8 one that loveth goodness (Tyndale’s, Coverdale’s, Matthew’s, Great, Geneva)
    a lover of goodness (Bishops’) a lover of good men (KJV)
    Tit. 2:10 faithfulness (Tyndale’s to Bishops’) fidelity (KJV)
    Heb. 10:23 hope (Tyndale’s to Bishops‘) faith (KJV)
    Heb. 13:17 the oversight (Tyndale’s to Bishops’) the rule (KJV)
    James 1:14 concupiscence (Tyndale’s to Bishops’) lust (KJV)
     
  5. deacon jd

    deacon jd
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2006
    Messages:
    228
    Likes Received:
    0
    This just proves that the KJV was not based upon these same bible that are mentioned above but are a pure translation from the original languages thanks for helping my arguement. Thank God the KJV hasn't been corrupted by Jeromes'
    'Vulgate" as many of the above versions that you mentioned have.
     
  6. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    Actually your reasoning is faulty. There is plenty of valid evidence that confirms that the KJV was a revision of the earlier English Bibles (Tyndale's to Bishops').

    Where is your credible evidence that proves that the KJV was not influenced at all by Jerome's Latin Vulgate? Have you forgotten Jerome's Latin Vulgate's rendering "lucifer" at Isaiah 14:12 along with other renderings that came either directly or indirectly from Jerome's Vulgate?

    The actual evidence shows a greater influence of Jerome's Latin Vulgate through means of the 1582 Rheims N. T. on the KJV than any such influence on the 1560 Geneva Bible.
     
  7. deacon jd

    deacon jd
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2006
    Messages:
    228
    Likes Received:
    0
    Where is your evidence that the KJV was influenced by Jeromes' Vulgate? I am sure that many of the words in the KJV are the same as Jeromes" Vulgate when translated, but that does not mean that Jeromes' Vulgate was the source or influence of the KJV.
     
  8. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    Some samples of the influence of Jerome's Vulgate thru means of the Rheims on the KJV are found in the thread "influence of Vulgate and Rheims on KJV."

    By the way, you did not provide any evidence for your claim that the differences between the pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV was a revision and the KJV listed in this thread are the result of the influence of Jerome's Latin Vulgate on those translations.

    Just start with the first example:

    Gen. 23:6 prince of God (Tyndale’s, Great, Geneva, Bishops’) mighty prince (KJV)

    How is this an example or proof of the influence of Jerome's Latin Vulgate on the pre-1611 English Bibles?

    Are you aware of the fact that the KJV translators stated that the literal rendering of the Hebrew at this verse was as follows in their marginal note: "Hebr. a Prince of God"?
     
  9. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    More than 85% of the AV1611 is EXACT COPY of the earlier translations that are listed above. 85% word-for-word.

    And as far as I know, not ONE WORD of the AV1611 is from the Latin Vulgate. Let me check that. There MAY be a name or such that is identical!
     
  10. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    "Lucifer" at Isaiah 14:12 would seem to have come either indirectly or directly from the Latin Vulgate. The 1380's Wycliffe's Bible may have introduced this rendering into English. Miles Coverdale, who translated the O. T. books Joshua thru Malachi from the Latin Vulgate and Luther's German Bible would likely have taken "Lucifer" from the Latin Vulgate in his 1535 Bible. If it is claimed to be taken from Luther's German Bible, that would make "Lucifer" be Coverdale's translation of Luther's rendering "morgen stern" [morning star] at Isaiah 14:12.

    At Deut. 14:5, the KJV rendering "pygarg" could come from the Latin Vulgate's "pygargus" or else from the Greek LXX's "pygargos."

    At John 14:2, Tyndale's rendering "mansions" seems to have come from the Latin Vulgate's "mansiones."

    What the KJV's rendering "unicorn" from the Latin "unicornis?"

    At Titus 2:10, the Latin-based rendering "fidelity" was substituted for "faithfulness" in Tyndale's, Coverdale's, Matthew's, Great, Whittingham's, Geneva, and Bishops'.

    A few examples of the Latin-based renderings from the Rheims in the KJV are the following: clemency [clementia] (Acts 24:4), principal [principalibus] (Acts 25:23), emulation [aemulandum] (Rom. 11:14), malignity [malignitate] (Rom. 1:29), illuminated [illuminati] (Heb. 10:32), sincerity [sinceritate] (2 Cor. 1:12), and incense [incensa] (Rev. 8:3).

    Concerning Leviticus 11:18, Robert Gell (1595-1665) who had been chaplain to KJV translator George Abbot, claimed that "our [KJV] translators render the word a swan, following therein Jerome's authority" (ESSAY, p. 270).
     
  11. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    Thanks - more than I would have expected. Most of the AV1611 was "borrowed" from the previous English.

    But as an LVO (Latin Vulgate Only) type :applause: I applaud the choices. Some contend that the AV was a "new" translation and this is laughable.
     
  12. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    In the Ezekiel volume of The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges, A. B. Davidson indicated that the KJV’s rendering “fitches” at Ezekiel 4:9 comes from Vulgate’s viciam, vetches” (p. 33). The 1395 Wycliffe’s from the Latin had “vetches” at Ezekiel 4:9. “Fitch” is said to be a variant spelling of “vetch.“
     

Share This Page

Loading...