Why did the AV1611 translators say this?

I note that "meanest" here meant "most common" at
the time of this writing and not "most mean"
as it does in the 21st century.

Isn't it strange how words can mean different
things after about 400 years? In fact, in
keeping with Daniel's prophecy in the last
chapter of the book of Daniel, it now takes
a lot less than 400 years for meanings
to change completely. I saw the word
"fundamentalist" change from 1975-1995

1975 - a member of of a Protestant movement
that stresses a literal interpertation of the
Bible
1985 - a member of any book religion that
stresses a literal interpertation of their
religious book
1995 - a bigot of any stripe.

 

Very simply put, the KJV translators were referencing translations that all had the same basic textual basis. That's about all that they had available to them in their day.

 

I believe they were acknowledging they weren't perfect & that their work wasn't the be-all and end-all of BVs. They were also recognizing that Bible translations weren't limited to English.

And, knowing that many, MANY Greek and Hebrew words or phrases have more than one translation possible in English, they were letting the reader know this also, and that other translations could have different renderings in many places, but yet be correct.

 

Why did the AV1611 make such statements about the bible in general? Notice they said nothing about KJVOism.

They meant exactly what they said: any translation of the Word of God is the Word of God, even if the translation is mediocre. Nothing in their words restricts the meaning to "translations that had the same texual basis" or only Bibles that preceded the KJV, as some KJV-onlyists like to spin it.

If it is a translation of the Word of God, it is the Word of God. Even if it's not perfect. It's that simple.

 

Yeah,what Pastor_Bob said!!

 

Then you agree with me that 2 Tim 3:16 does not refer to the NT, just the OT, because the current Bible wasn't in existence when 2 Tim was written. And you agree that the warning in Revelation about adding or removing words pertains only to Revelation itself, as the Bible was not yet compiled.

 

I do agree with Pastor_Bob, but I think it also goes further as Robycop says.

The text mentions the King speaking in parliament and being translated into different languages, and also making note that the kings words would still exist even if different translators used different phrases in their translations. In other words, they are admitting the KJV is just another translation and that other translations also contain the Words of God.

Ref quote:"As the Kings Speech which hee vttered in Parliament, being translated into French, Dutch, Italian and Latine, is still the Kings Speech, though it be not interpreted by euery Translator with the like grace, nor peraduenture so fitly for phrase, nor so expresly for sence, euery where."

 

Tell me then,does the Jehova Witness Bible,or the Living Bible "declare unto you all the counsel of God."???

 

Yes, I agree that Paul was referring to the Old Testament Scriptures when he penned this to Timothy. However, because the Word of God is quick and powerful, I believe that it applies to us today as well as it did then. Therefore, II Timothy 3:16 applies to the New testament as well as the Old even though that is not the literal interpretation of the passage.

I believe this specific warning pertains to the book of Revelation only. Still, the principle is applicable to the whole Bible. No one has a right to change any part of any revelation which God makes to man. We are not to add to it, or to take from it, or in any way to change it.

 

Pastor Bob, the Word can be quick and powerful without applying where the author intended it to not apply.

The principle mentioned by the KJV translators applies to all translations, not just those they had before them. They were clear that they were citing a general principle, not simply addressing the translations currently in existence. Their discussion of various translations of the King's speeches into various languages shows they were speaking in generalities, not specific translations before them.

The KJV translators, through the preface, thoroughly repudiate the KJVo 4 and 5 positions. The KJV is not perfect, other translations are also the Word of God even if they are poor translations, and a man is wise to use many translations in his study.

 

Pastor_Bob said "Very simply put, the KJV translators were referencing translations that all had the same basic textual basis. That's about all that they had available to them in their day."

Not exactly. They had the Douay-Rheims, they had the Vulgate, they had the Septuagint. And the Septuagint, which is much more dissimilar than all the rest (and much more dissimilar than any "modern version" today), was called "the word of God" by them.

 

One thing the AV translators did NOT say: that they were AV-ONLY!

 

I can appreciate what the KJV translators stood for and their attitude. I have done enough translation to know that at times it can be extremely difficult if not nearly impossible at times.

 

Slambo asked:

Tell me then,does the Jehova Witness Bible,or the Living Bible "declare unto you all the counsel of God."???

Out of curiosity, is the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society giving KJV-onlyists any advertising commissions for mentioning the NTW in every post?

Or do KJV-onlyists just not know better than to forth the same really, really weak arguments over and over again?

You obviously didn't read what the translators said, but decided just to jump in and pontificate on something you have no clue about. I quote:

The translators were commenting on translations produced by men of their profession, specifically, Protestant Anglicans, as opposed to Roman Catholicism.

Are the JWs in line with professing historic Protestantism? No. In fact they're even worse than the Catholics. The translators would not have accepted their perverted paraphrase as truly the Word of God, and neither do I.

See what fun reading can be? Try it sometime.

 

I agree with Pastor_Bob on this issue that although the Revelation makes this warning, it is strictly for the book itself and not for the entire Bible. But, taking the entire Bible in context it should not be added to or taken away from.

I actually wanted to explain the statement in Revelation a little better. It is a historical fact that much literature that was written during the time that John wrote Revelation had the same statement attached to the end.

It is considered, by many modern scholars to be a early day "copyright" notice.

Most of all it was found on "predictive", "prophetical" or "apocalyptic" literature. A lot of this type of literature was written during this time and was not considered in the canon of scriptures. But, most of it contained the statement.

In other words, you can copy this work, but don't add to it or don't take anything away from it.

Much like freeware software, you can copy it, pass it around, but don't add to it or take anything away from it.

Then invoking what God will do, just seals it that much further. In John's case, since it is scripture, it does become God's Word and therefore becomes a "truth".

 

Then you agree with me that 2 Tim 3:16 does not refer to the NT, just the OT, because the current Bible wasn't in existence when 2 Tim was written. And you agree that the warning in Revelation about adding or removing words pertains only to Revelation itself, as the Bible was not yet compiled. </font>[/QUOTE]Only if you don't recognize the unity of scripture.

 

Considering that the Apocrypha was included as Scripture in the KJV, and before it and for well after 1611, you had better hope that those verses are not speaking to you about ripping those books out of God's Word!