Why is the preface in the AV 1611 now omitted?

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by robycop3, Oct 18, 2004.

  1. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,574
    Likes Received:
    10
    Everyone here knows the AV 1611 contains a preface, "From The Translators To The Reader". Now, many a supporter of the KJVO myth calls him/herself "AV1611" or something similar, but, if questioned about their quoting Scripture from a later KJV edition, chimes" There's no textual changes". Then, if they're saying the later KJVs are essentially the same as the AV 1611 except for the Apocrypha, how do they justify the removal of the preface? And how do the PUBLISHERS justify its removal? they can't say it's to keep the number of pages down because almost every KJV edition today includes a concordance, or maps, or commentary, or dictionary, or a combination of any or all of the above, each of which takes several more pages to print than does the preface. The preface is not under any more copyright than the text is. I know of no good reason to have omitted it.

    Is it because the publishers don't believe the newer editions are actually that close to the 1611?

    I don't believe the KJVO myth would've gotten to first base if the later KJVs had included that preface. The Psalm 12:7 thingy would never have been conceived, nor would the many claims & counterclaims from both sides of mistranslations ever seen light. In other words, IMO, there wouldn't have been any KJVO myth, period.

    Can anyone tell us any FACTS about why the preface is now omitted from most currently-printed KJV editions?
     
  2. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,178
    Likes Received:
    325
    For exactly the reason I keep "harping on".

    It's a two-edged sword.

    While the preface has much valuable information as to the thoughts and intents of the hearts of the translators, it also shows the fact of my contention that these Church of England "Protestant" men had not completely severed the umbilical cord with the errors of the Church of Rome.

    They say nothing concerning the non-canonicity of the Apocrypha or why they included it. They give support to several "canonized saints" of the Church of Rome (S. Ierome - Saint Jerome, S. Augustine) they give support to the Latin Vulgate, etc.

    This IMO is also the reason for eliminating the other embarrassing incidentals of the 1611 First Edition which clearly show the affinity with Rome. The "Kalendar" of saints days including days devoted to the "Blessed Virgin", Apocrypha references in these calendars along with the marginal readings (including Apocryphal citations), etc.

    In other words that which IS EVIDENT to these romish longings has been removed as much as is possible.

    HankD
     
  3. pastorjeff

    pastorjeff
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2004
    Messages:
    320
    Likes Received:
    0
    It's in my KJV. Don't know why it's left out of others though. :confused:
     
  4. Slambo

    Slambo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2003
    Messages:
    197
    Likes Received:
    0
    Probaly because most are concerned about the actual TEXT says,rather than what the translators say..Most people that downplay the KJV are the ones that use it most;but only when they trying to support their positions.But any other time they are Baby sprinkling ___________..You fill in the blank :rolleyes: [​IMG]
     
  5. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,574
    Likes Received:
    10
    The actual text was written by the translators, same as were all the other things in the AV 1611. While the text is limited to their translation, the preface provides some insights into the translators' thoughts.

    And , as some people here have demonstrated, they believe the KJV or its translators ONLY as long as it/they support the KJVO myth.
     
  6. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    It is great to read it, as it shows the language of the AV1611 was intentionally different from the language spoken in 1611. The translators in the preface speak much closer to modern-day English than the intentionally-chosen words/endings that they used in the AV1611 to help us understand the Greek.

    I also am saddened that somewhere down the line the "alternate" words - thousands listed by the translators as just as valid/good and truly helpful in understanding the text - have been dropped. My KJV1769 bible (Scofield/Oxford) has a bunch of them back in the margin, but by Scofield, not from the AV1611.

    Such omissions were willful choices, undermining the Translation and (sadly) laying the groundwork for the modern second-inspiration attitude (explicit or implicit, but there all the time) of the only sect.
     
  7. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,178
    Likes Received:
    325
    Dr Bob, BibleWorks software adds the marginal readings of the AV1611 in the body of the text on the screen with a button-click.

    HankD
     
  8. mioque

    mioque
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2003
    Messages:
    3,899
    Likes Received:
    0
    "Don't know why it's left out of others though."
    "
    Because it is cheaper to print (less pages) without the introduction. At least that's why it originally got dropped, afterwards it just stayed that way out of habit.
     

Share This Page

Loading...