Why did the AV1611 translators say this?

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by David J, Oct 18, 2004.

  1. David J

    David J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2004
    Messages:
    796
    Likes Received:
    0
    1. “Now to the later we answere; that wee doe not deny, nay wee affirme and auow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set foorth by men of our profession (for wee haue seene none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God. 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. For it is confessed, that things are to take their denomination of the greater part; and a naturall man could say, Verum vbi multa nitent in carmine, non ego paucis offendor maculis, &c. A man may be counted a vertuous man, though hee haue made many slips in his life, (els, there were none vertuous, for in many things we offend all) also a comely man and louely, though hee haue some warts vpon his hand, yea, not onely freakles vpon his face, but also skarres. No cause therefore why the word translated should bee denied to be the word, or forbidden to be currant, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting foorth of it.”

    2.Therefore as S. Augustine saith, that varietie of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures; so diuersitie of signification and sense in the margine, where the text is not so cleare, must needes doe good, yea, is necessary, as we are perswaded....They that are wise, had rather haue their judgements at libertie in differences of readings, then to be captiuated to one, when it may be the other.”

    No spin just answer the question.

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

    If you are KJVO then address these questions and DO NOT POST A BUNCH OF JUNK THAT DOES NOT APPLY TO THIS TOPIC. I'm tired of my threads being hijacked by KJVOist propaganda. I'm looking for a real discussion and not a bunch of copy and paste junk.

    Your thoughts?
     
  2. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  3. Pastor_Bob

    Pastor_Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2002
    Messages:
    3,461
    Likes Received:
    45
    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.
     
  4. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    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.
     
  5. Ransom

    Ransom
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2000
    Messages:
    4,132
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  6. Slambo

    Slambo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2003
    Messages:
    197
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yeah,what Pastor_Bob said!!
     
  7. manchester

    manchester
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2004
    Messages:
    401
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  8. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    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."
     
  9. Slambo

    Slambo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2003
    Messages:
    197
    Likes Received:
    0
    Tell me then,does the Jehova Witness Bible,or the Living Bible "declare unto you all the counsel of God."???
     
  10. Pastor_Bob

    Pastor_Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2002
    Messages:
    3,461
    Likes Received:
    45
    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.
     
  11. manchester

    manchester
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2004
    Messages:
    401
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  12. natters

    natters
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,496
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  13. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    One thing the AV translators did NOT say: that they were AV-ONLY!
     
  14. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    Good point, Slam. Some translations are intentionally corrupt and evil, not honest efforts of understanding and communicating God's Word.

    "Derived" inspiration comes from translation (in any language) that honestly reflects the Word of God in the Greek/Hebrew.

    TheLiving Bible ISN'T a translation and is excluded. The cult's Bible ISN'T honest or accurate, so is excluded.

    99% of the English translations ARE INCLUDED. Even a mean one.
     
  15. gb93433

    gb93433
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    15,496
    Likes Received:
    6
    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.
     
  16. Ransom

    Ransom
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2000
    Messages:
    4,132
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  17. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    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".
     
  18. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    Scott - you DO have a way to fillet with your words and logic! Brought a smile to my face!

    But you will NOT get an "A" in "plays well with others" on your BB report card, again.
     
  19. Scott J

    Scott J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  20. manchester

    manchester
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2004
    Messages:
    401
    Likes Received:
    0
    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!
     

Share This Page

Loading...