About Modern Versions compared to the KJV

[AV]

Logos1560,
Interestingly you moved from saying you were 'quoting from my post' here:

You make no consistent, sound, logical, scriptural case for your assertion that "the preservation of Scripture allows for translations to be final authority." [a quote from one of your posts from a link at your blog]

to this:

In my opinion, you try to suggest or imply that

So is this an example of just weights & measures you trumpeted earlier?
I think to speak to the supposed quote you brought up- I believe you would agree with Greg Bahnsen (no KJV-Onlyest) when he states "We may now summarize the attitude that the Bible itself displays to the autographa and copies in this fashion. The authority and usefulness of extant copies and translations of the Scriptures is apparent throughout the bible. They are adequate for bringing people to a knowledge of saving truth and for directing their lives. Yet it is also evident that the use of scriptural authority derived from copies has underlying it the implicit understanding, and often explicit qualification, that these extant copies are authoritative in that, and to the extent that, they reproduce the original, autographic text." Also "Therefore, the New Testament use of the Septuagint or of inexact renditions of the Old Testament does not belie the commitment of the involved writers to the criteriological authority of the autographa. The practice does, however, underline their unanxious acceptance of texts or versions that were not strictly autographic as being adequate for the practical purposes at hand in their teaching. These were adequate precisely because they could be assumed to portray the true sense of the original."
(quoted from the last part of 'The Biblical Attitude' from this essay- PT042)
So as you are bound to agree 'the preservation of Scripture allows for translations to be final authority' when qualified with "in that, and to the extent that, they reproduce the original, autographic text". (Granted you might disagree again for no apparent reason- like the Montgomery summary. Do you still maintain that you disagree with him?)
So would you agree that translations carry final authority on at least 1 verse? Can you give a translation and a verse that is the infallible word of God- and then explain why this is so? We can save time and skip an answer such as 'if it accurately reflects the original reading' and explain how you know what an original reading is.
A quote from my blog post right before your quote says this "Over and over again the apostles, their adversaries and the Lord Jesus himself bear record that they read and had access to what was originally written. The text was preserved to them even though the original autographs were lost." Now I don't know how you believe on the Septuagint or the language of Jesus, but if you believe Jesus spoke Aramaic and he and the Jews used the Septuagint in Greek and they appealed to 'the scriptures' as final authority in their day was that simply a phenomenon of that time in history? Or do you agree with Bahnsen again here " “It stands written” expresses the truth that what has been written in the original Scripture remains so written in the present copies. Conversely, that to which the writer appeals in the present copies of Scripture as normative is so because it is taken to be the enduring witness of the autographic text...If the New Testament authors are not appealing through their extant copies of the original text, their arguments are futile." (same section as earlier quote) If you agree and apply this truth to our day (it was not written for his sake alone-Rom.4:23) how do you know with certainty that you are 'appealing through your extant copies of the original text'? Modern Textual criticism (as summarized by Montgomery in the quote)?
You see we both know that we wouldn't know the original autographs if we saw them and it pleased God to have it so. We also know that his word will never pass away (obviously not the originals). We also know that there are variations of a 'word' and both variations are inspired- such as:
Genesis 2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
Mark 10:7-8 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; [8] And they twain shall be one flesh:
or again:
Genesis 15:6 And he believed in the Lord; and he counted it to him for righteousness.
Romans 4:3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.

(Or just peruse here for more examples- conceal a thing)

We also know that science can only give us probability- but God's word gives us infallible assurance. We also know that his word was to be sent into all languages (Mt.28:20, Rv.5:9). So how do you cohere all these truths?

 

[Logos1560]

Logos1560,
I'm beginning to think you are not interested in a discussion, but rather throwing accusations hoping one will divert attention. Can you be specific? Let's start with one thing first-

Give me the exact reference and location please.

Also- I'm not sure where this fits in but you said:
"Do you make an invalid comparison or jump to an unsound conclusion when you attempt to suggest that any translating in the giving of the words of Scripture by the process of inspiration to the prophets and apostles would be the same thing as translating in 1611 by men who were not prophets and apostles and who did not receive their textual criticism decisions and translation decisions by the process of inspiration of God?"

If I understand your question, No- it is not the exact same thing.

You asked for the exact reference to what you stated, and I provided it for you. You are unwilling to engage in mutual discussion and discuss what you yourself claimed. Are you now trying to divert attention away from what you yourself claimed and from your own answer to my question based on what you claimed? You quickly moved away from what you stated.

Here is what you stated in your blog: "Some man will say ‘There can be no inspired translations’; and yet we find this very thing all through the bible. Josephs correspondence in the Egyptian tongue (Gen.42:23) was recorded in inspired Hebrew. Likewise was Moses’ speech with Pharaoh (Ex.2:10) in Egyptian. Daniels words were spoken many of them in the tongue of the Chaldeans (Dan.1:4) and yet translated into Hebrew as was the unknown tongue in Daniel 5:24-28 after it was translated into Chaldean. How many dozens of verses in the New Testament are quoting the Old Testament and are inspired translations; and so inspired translations are scriptural and reasonable and historical."

In my opinion, you try to suggest or imply that claiming that a translation such the KJV is inspired would be scriptural, making an invalid comparison to examples of translating that were part of the giving of the Scriptures by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles. Your implied conclusion does not actually follow from the examples to which you appeal.

Perhaps you do not understand the point that some believers may be making. They may be making the same point that the KJV translators themselves made in their preface when they suggested that translations would have some imperfections and could not be perfect. If those believers [whom you do not name and do not directly quote] state their point accurately, they may not actually say that God could not directly give translations by inspiration. Their actual point may be based on the close of the canon, the completion of the Scriptures, or the understanding that the giving of the Scriptures by the miracle of inspiration ended with the completion of the New Testament. Thus, they may only be suggesting that after God chose to end the process of the giving of Scripture by the miracle of inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles with the completion of the New Testament that later translations not given by inspiration of God cannot scripturally be said to be inspired. Thus, you may be skipping over or avoiding the actual reasons why they may say that later Bible translations cannot be inspired or perfect. Are you possibly creating a straw man that misrepresents what they actually mean?

In their 1611 preface "The Translators to the Reader", the KJV translators stated: "No cause therefore why the word translated should be denied to be the word, or forbidden to be current, notwithstanding some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it. For whatever was perfect under the sun, where Apostles or Apostolike men, that is, men endured with an extraordinary measure of God's spirit, and priviledged with the priviledge of infallibility, had not their hand?"

Do you make it clear that you will not apply the same exact measures to the view of Bible translations stated by the KJV translators that you inconsistently attempt to apply to others?

Your own stated conclusion did not follow from the examples that you cited so you failed to make your case for what you claimed.

 

[Logos1560]

Logos1560,
We also know that his word will never pass away (obviously not the originals).?

It may obviously not refer to the original autographs on earth, but that does not show that it obviously could not refer to a preservation of the original language words of Scripture given by inspiration to the prophets and apostles.

You do not demonstrate that the 1611 KJV is what is referred to as the word that will not pass away.

 

[Logos1560]

Why would KJV-only advocates include the other earlier English Bibles on their good tree of Bibles if they did not have the correct words and were not the word of God? The earlier English Bibles are as much sources of the KJV as its original language texts if not more so since the KJV is more of a revision than it is a completely new translation. According to the law of non-contradiction, the KJV cannot be a revision of the pre-1611 English Bibles and not a revision at the same time. If these earlier Bibles were the word of God in English as the KJV translators asserted, did they cease to be the word of God after they were revised or updated? Did the first authorized English Bible [the Great Bible] expire or cease to be the word of God at some point? Did the Geneva Bible [the authorized English Bible in Scotland] cease to be the word of God at a certain date? Did the Bishops’ Bible cease to be the word of God at some point? If these earlier English Bibles were not the word of God in English, what does that suggest about the KJV which is a revision of them? Was the KJV a revision of earlier English Bibles that were not profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, and for instruction in righteousness? Was the KJV a revision of earlier English Bibles that were not “holy,” "accurate," "correct," "good," "valid," "acceptable," "legitimate," “pure,“ or "true" Bibles according to a consistent application of KJV-only reasoning? Were all the words of the pre-1611 English Bibles fixed, solid, and pure? According to the law of non-contradiction, can the KJV have qualities which are not in common with the earlier English Bibles of which it was a revision? Can the pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV was a revision produce, reproduce, or transfer qualities that were not present in them? How could a pre-1611 English Bible give the KJV something that it does not have itself? According to a consistent application of some KJV-only reasoning, would not common sense dictate that for the descendant [the KJV] to retain inspiration its ancestors [the pre-1611 English Bibles] would have first had to have inspiration? Can the KJV supposedly inherit inspiration from pre-1611 English Bibles that were not given by inspiration of God? Can the KJV inherit perfection, purity, or incorruption from pre-1611 English Bibles that had some imperfections, impure renderings, or other faults according to a consistent application of KJV-only reasoning? Without a direct miracle of God, can imperfection, impurity, or corruption inherit perfection, purity, or incorruption? While KJV-only advocates appear to want believers to go back to 1611, they usually imply that you cannot go back before 1611 and have a perfect English Bible.

A view of Bible translation that makes one exception instead of applying the same standard to all translations on its good tree is a view of translation that is not worth having. If every translation on their tree is imperfect and errant with one exception, by what different process was this one exception made? How could all the Bibles on their own good line except one ever have escaped the claimed or implied process of perfect preservation? Is not the argument for one exception in exclusive "only" claims for the KJV in effect the same as an unscriptural claim for additional or advanced revelation? Paisley claimed: "Being a translation does not alter one iota of its integrity, inerrancy and infallibility as God's Word" (Plea, p. 9). For this statement to be true it would have to apply to all translations in the good line; otherwise, it becomes another inconsistent claim for making one exception.

The branches of a tree (individual translations) have no life of their own and cannot produce fruit if they are separated from the tree of God's Word in the original languages. Therefore, the tree or trunk (the preserved Scriptures in the original languages) must be the standard for judging or evaluating all the branches. A branch is not of the same importance as the trunk of the tree. A branch cannot outrank the trunk or the root. A branch cannot bear fruit of itself (John 15:4). A branch does not bear, produce, or support the trunk or the root (Rom. 11:18). Any branch cut off from the trunk cannot live by itself. How can one branch (the KJV) be the final standard beyond which there is no other for evaluating all other branches? It cannot be correctly said that one branch outranks another branch of the same tree. If one branch [one translation] must be inspired, inerrant, perfect, incorruptible, preserved, or self-authenticating, all the branches must have these same qualities or attributes. Any attribute of one natural branch must be present in the trunk and in all the other natural branches of the same tree. Otherwise, it is being illogically claimed that contradictory and opposite qualities are part of the same tree. Otherwise, it is being claimed or implied that one natural branch belongs to a completely different species than the other natural branches of the same tree.

Perhaps now KJV-only advocates can see the major problem with making one branch (the KJV) the standard instead of using the correct standard that stands behind and beyond it--God's Word in the original languages. No branch (translation) can possibly be superior in authority to the tree. What sort of a tree has only one "perfect" branch? Can one branch of a tree that is still part of that tree be claimed to be alive if the trunk, roots, and other branches of that same tree are implied to be dead? A good tree will be full of good branches with good fruit. The tree itself has to be good before it can bring forth good fruit on its branches. Can any one natural branch bring forth fruit that is contrary to the qualities of the fruit of the other natural branches of this same tree? All the natural branches of the same tree derive their qualities from the same identical source. No tree can give to its branches what it does not possess. If the tree or root is holy, all the branches are also holy (Rom. 11:16). The holiness and other qualities of one branch is of no other nature than that of all the other branches of the same tree. The innate, inherent, ingrained qualities or essential constitution of all the natural branches of one tree are the same. Thus, God's Word indicates that whatever is affirmed of one branch must be affirmed concerning all the branches. Therefore, it would be unscriptural and contradictory to claim that one branch is holy and inspired but the other branches of the same tree are not. Is one branch superior and greater in authority than another branch? Two branches or even all the branches of the same tree that are claimed to have the same qualities as this tree are equal to each other. Two things equal to the same thing are equal to each other. Their own tree analogy confirms that there are major problems with a KJV-only view. Their own tree or stream argument proves more than they intended.

Any quality or attribute in the KJV has to have already been in the earlier English Bibles of which it is a revision. If the attribute or quality was not already present in the family tree, it could not have been passed on to the branch. If the qualities were not already present in the trunk and tree [the preserved Scriptures in the original languages], how did they supposedly get into one natural branch of that tree? If the qualities were supposedly somewhat lacking in the other branches (the pre-1611 English Bibles), how were they transferred to a later branch (the KJV)?

 

[AV]

What I wrote I was applying to pre-1611 English bibles. Please re-read it also answer the questions I posed.

 

[Logos1560]

The actual facts concerning the pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV is a revision are not a problem for my consistent view of Bible translations that is in agreement with the view of Bible translations held by the early English translators and the KJV translators. Those facts would be a problem for inconsistent KJV-only reasoning, which may explain why you do not answer my questions concerning them. In addition, you do not deal with the fact that the KJV translators borrowed some renderings from the 1582 Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament. Your questions do not demonstrate your KJV-only reasoning to be sound and true.

You have not demonstrated that your logic is sound since you do not clearly identify your consistent premises that you can show to be true that would have to be the basis for your unproven conclusions.

 

[rlvaughn]

In addition, you do not deal with the fact that the KJV translators borrowed some renderings from the 1582 Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament.

Interesting. What are some of the places where these borrowings can be found?

Thanks.

 

[Logos1560]

Interesting. What are some of the places where these borrowings can be found?

Thanks.

Ward Allen maintained that "the Rheims New Testament furnished to the Synoptic Gospels and Epistles in the A. V. as many revised readings as any other version" (Translating the N. T. Epistles, p. xxv). Allen and Jacobs claimed that the KJV translators "in revising the text of the synoptic Gospels in the Bishops' Bible, owe about one-fourth of their revisions, each, to the Genevan and Rheims New Testaments" (Coming of the King James Gospels, p. 29).

About 1 Peter 1:20, Ward Allen noted: “The A. V. shows most markedly here the influence of the Rheims Bible, from which it adopts the verb in composition, the reference of the adverbial modifier to the predicate, the verb manifest, and the prepositional phrase for you” (Translating for King James, p. 18). Concerning 1 Peter 4:9, Allen suggested that “this translation in the A. V. joins the first part of the sentence from the Rheims Bible to the final phrase of the Protestant translations” (p. 30). Allen also observed: "At Col. 2:18, he [KJV translator John Bois] explains that the [KJV] translators were relying upon the example of the Rheims Bible" (pp. 10, 62-63). The note of John Bois cited a rendering from the 1582 Rheims [“willing in humility”] and then cited the margin of the Rheims [“willfull, or selfwilled in voluntary religion”] (p. 63). Was the KJV’s rendering “voluntary” borrowed from the margin of the 1582 Rheims?

The first-hand testimony of a KJV translator acknowledged or confirmed that the KJV was directly influenced by the 1582 Rheims.

Here are some possible examples from the book of Luke where the makers of the KJV may have borrowed renderings from the 1582 Rheims.

Luke 6:49 fall of that house (Tyndale’s to Bishops’) ruin of that house (Rheims, KJV)

Luke 9:1 heal (Tyndale’s to Bishops’) cure (Rheims, KJV)

Luke 10:14 be easier (Tyndale’s to Bishops’) be more tolerable (Rheims, KJV)

Luke 12:27 royalty (Tyndale’s to Bishops’) glory (Rheims, KJV)

Luke 12:27 clothed (Tyndale’s to Bishops’) arrayed (Rheims, KJV)

Luke 14:28 perform (Tyndale’s to Bishops’) finish (Rheims, KJV)

Luke 15:14 dearth (Tyndale’s to Bishops’) famine (Rheims, KJV)

Luke 19:4 wild fig (Tyndale’s to Bishops’) sycomore (Rheims, KJV)

Luke 19:21 strait (Tyndale’s, Matthew’s, Great, Whittingham’s, Geneva, Bishops’)

hard (Coverdale’s) austere (Rheims, KJV)

Luke 19:22 strait (Tyndale’s, Matthew’s, Great, Whittingham’s, Geneva, Bishops’)

hard (Coverdale’s) austere (Rheims, KJV)

Luke 19:23 vantage (Tyndale’s to Bishops’) usury (Rheims, KJV)

Luke 21:4 superfluity (Tyndale’s, Matthew’s, Great, Whittingham’s, Geneva, Bishops’)

excess (Coverdale’s) abundance (Rheims, KJV)

Luke 21:5 garnished (Tyndale’s to Bishops’) adorned (Rheims, KJV)

Luke 21:20 besieged (Tyndale’s to Bishops’) compassed (Rheims, KJV)

Luke 22:30 seats (Tyndale’s to Bishops’) thrones (Rheims, KJV)

Luke 23:19 insurrection (Tyndale’s to Bishops’) sedition (Rheims, KJV)

Luke 23:32 evil doers (Tyndale’s to Bishops’) malefactors (Rheims, KJV)

Luke 23:39 evil doers (Tyndale’s to Bishops’) malefactors (Rheims, KJV)

 

[rlvaughn]

In The Epistle Dedicatory, the KJ translation committee make at least one reference to the Catholic translation (though these examples may come from the OT Douay rather than NT Rheims):

as also on the other side we have shunned the obscurity of the Papists, in their Azimes, Tunike, Rational, Holocausts, Præpuce, Pasche, and a number of such like, whereof their late translation is full, and that of purpose to darken the sense, that since they must needs translate the Bible, yet by the language thereof it may be kept from being understood.

Even though this is a negative example, it shows their familiarity with it.

[Note: in the online Douay-Rheims I searched, I only found the words Holocausts and Rational (in the Old Testament). Perhaps the others have been updated to different words.]

 

[Yeshua1]

The actual facts concerning the pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV is a revision are not a problem for my consistent view of Bible translations that is in agreement with the view of Bible translations held by the early English translators and the KJV translators. Those facts would be a problem for inconsistent KJV-only reasoning, which may explain why you do not answer my questions concerning them. In addition, you do not deal with the fact that the KJV translators borrowed some renderings from the 1582 Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament. Your questions do not demonstrate your KJV-only reasoning to be sound and true.

You have not demonstrated that your logic is sound since you do not clearly identify your consistent premises that you can show to be true that would have to be the basis for your unproven conclusions.

The Kjv translators would have seen all of those prior english versions as being the word of God just as much as theur new translation. correct?
Since they did, how could theirs now be the only one , not unless they had divine inspiration to translate?

 

[Yeshua1]

Why would KJV-only advocates include the other earlier English Bibles on their good tree of Bibles if they did not have the correct words and were not the word of God? The earlier English Bibles are as much sources of the KJV as its original language texts if not more so since the KJV is more of a revision than it is a completely new translation. According to the law of non-contradiction, the KJV cannot be a revision of the pre-1611 English Bibles and not a revision at the same time. If these earlier Bibles were the word of God in English as the KJV translators asserted, did they cease to be the word of God after they were revised or updated? Did the first authorized English Bible [the Great Bible] expire or cease to be the word of God at some point? Did the Geneva Bible [the authorized English Bible in Scotland] cease to be the word of God at a certain date? Did the Bishops’ Bible cease to be the word of God at some point? If these earlier English Bibles were not the word of God in English, what does that suggest about the KJV which is a revision of them? Was the KJV a revision of earlier English Bibles that were not profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, and for instruction in righteousness? Was the KJV a revision of earlier English Bibles that were not “holy,” "accurate," "correct," "good," "valid," "acceptable," "legitimate," “pure,“ or "true" Bibles according to a consistent application of KJV-only reasoning? Were all the words of the pre-1611 English Bibles fixed, solid, and pure? According to the law of non-contradiction, can the KJV have qualities which are not in common with the earlier English Bibles of which it was a revision? Can the pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV was a revision produce, reproduce, or transfer qualities that were not present in them? How could a pre-1611 English Bible give the KJV something that it does not have itself? According to a consistent application of some KJV-only reasoning, would not common sense dictate that for the descendant [the KJV] to retain inspiration its ancestors [the pre-1611 English Bibles] would have first had to have inspiration? Can the KJV supposedly inherit inspiration from pre-1611 English Bibles that were not given by inspiration of God? Can the KJV inherit perfection, purity, or incorruption from pre-1611 English Bibles that had some imperfections, impure renderings, or other faults according to a consistent application of KJV-only reasoning? Without a direct miracle of God, can imperfection, impurity, or corruption inherit perfection, purity, or incorruption? While KJV-only advocates appear to want believers to go back to 1611, they usually imply that you cannot go back before 1611 and have a perfect English Bible.

A view of Bible translation that makes one exception instead of applying the same standard to all translations on its good tree is a view of translation that is not worth having. If every translation on their tree is imperfect and errant with one exception, by what different process was this one exception made? How could all the Bibles on their own good line except one ever have escaped the claimed or implied process of perfect preservation? Is not the argument for one exception in exclusive "only" claims for the KJV in effect the same as an unscriptural claim for additional or advanced revelation? Paisley claimed: "Being a translation does not alter one iota of its integrity, inerrancy and infallibility as God's Word" (Plea, p. 9). For this statement to be true it would have to apply to all translations in the good line; otherwise, it becomes another inconsistent claim for making one exception.

The branches of a tree (individual translations) have no life of their own and cannot produce fruit if they are separated from the tree of God's Word in the original languages. Therefore, the tree or trunk (the preserved Scriptures in the original languages) must be the standard for judging or evaluating all the branches. A branch is not of the same importance as the trunk of the tree. A branch cannot outrank the trunk or the root. A branch cannot bear fruit of itself (John 15:4). A branch does not bear, produce, or support the trunk or the root (Rom. 11:18). Any branch cut off from the trunk cannot live by itself. How can one branch (the KJV) be the final standard beyond which there is no other for evaluating all other branches? It cannot be correctly said that one branch outranks another branch of the same tree. If one branch [one translation] must be inspired, inerrant, perfect, incorruptible, preserved, or self-authenticating, all the branches must have these same qualities or attributes. Any attribute of one natural branch must be present in the trunk and in all the other natural branches of the same tree. Otherwise, it is being illogically claimed that contradictory and opposite qualities are part of the same tree. Otherwise, it is being claimed or implied that one natural branch belongs to a completely different species than the other natural branches of the same tree.

Perhaps now KJV-only advocates can see the major problem with making one branch (the KJV) the standard instead of using the correct standard that stands behind and beyond it--God's Word in the original languages. No branch (translation) can possibly be superior in authority to the tree. What sort of a tree has only one "perfect" branch? Can one branch of a tree that is still part of that tree be claimed to be alive if the trunk, roots, and other branches of that same tree are implied to be dead? A good tree will be full of good branches with good fruit. The tree itself has to be good before it can bring forth good fruit on its branches. Can any one natural branch bring forth fruit that is contrary to the qualities of the fruit of the other natural branches of this same tree? All the natural branches of the same tree derive their qualities from the same identical source. No tree can give to its branches what it does not possess. If the tree or root is holy, all the branches are also holy (Rom. 11:16). The holiness and other qualities of one branch is of no other nature than that of all the other branches of the same tree. The innate, inherent, ingrained qualities or essential constitution of all the natural branches of one tree are the same. Thus, God's Word indicates that whatever is affirmed of one branch must be affirmed concerning all the branches. Therefore, it would be unscriptural and contradictory to claim that one branch is holy and inspired but the other branches of the same tree are not. Is one branch superior and greater in authority than another branch? Two branches or even all the branches of the same tree that are claimed to have the same qualities as this tree are equal to each other. Two things equal to the same thing are equal to each other. Their own tree analogy confirms that there are major problems with a KJV-only view. Their own tree or stream argument proves more than they intended.

Any quality or attribute in the KJV has to have already been in the earlier English Bibles of which it is a revision. If the attribute or quality was not already present in the family tree, it could not have been passed on to the branch. If the qualities were not already present in the trunk and tree [the preserved Scriptures in the original languages], how did they supposedly get into one natural branch of that tree? If the qualities were supposedly somewhat lacking in the other branches (the pre-1611 English Bibles), how were they transferred to a later branch (the KJV)?

Do you see the Majority Text as now being part of that"good tree?"

 

[rsr]

In The Epistle Dedicatory, the KJ translation committee make at least one reference to the Catholic translation (though these examples may come from the OT Douay rather than NT Rheims):
Even though this is a negative example, it shows their familiarity with it.

[Note: in the online Douay-Rheims I searched, I only found the words Holocausts and Rational (in the Old Testament). Perhaps the others have been updated to different words.]

You may be correct, although the OT was not published until 1609-10. The Rheims NT, on the other hand, was published in 1582 and was widely available in England (the version itself was banned) through William Fulke's Confutation, which published the Bishops Bible and the Rheims text side by side in 1589. But from what I can, holocaust (burnt offering) and rational (breastplate) were confined to the OT, although they may have shown up in the notes of the NT.

And almost certainly what you searched online was not the original Douay-Rheims but some form of the Challoner revision of 1752, which generally made the language less Latinate and more like the King James Version.

Here's an example of the original Rheims NT:

"The Gentils to be coheires and concorporat and comparticipant of his promis in Christ JESUS by the Gospel: whereof I am made a minister according to the gift of the grace of God, which is given me according to the operation of his power. To me the least of al the sainctes is given this grace, among the Gentils to evangelize the unsearcheable riches of Christ, and to illuminate al men what is the dispensation of the sacrament hidden from worldes in God, who created al things: that the manifold wisedom of God, may be notified to the Princes and Potestats in the celestials by the Church, according to the prefinition of worldes, which he made in Christ JESUS our Lord. In whom we have affiance and accesse in confidence, by the faith of him." Ephesians 3:6-12

 

[rlvaughn]

You may be correct, although the OT was not published until 1609-10.

Well, based on what I was reading on a Catholic site and what I found searching, it seemed that way. But it appears several of these words were in the Rheims NT, based on the "The Explication of Certaine Words" found in this 1582 Rheims on Google. Azimes (spelled Azymes), Holocausts, Præpuce (spelled Prepuce), and Pasche are in there. I did not see Tunike or Rational, but perhaps they didn't consider them hard words "not familiar to the vulgar reader." Or maybe the KJ translators were referring to both NT and OT. Since the prefatory material was probably written last, maybe they had their hands on a copy of the OT by then?

And almost certainly what you searched online was not the original Douay-Rheims but some form of the Challoner revision of 1752, which generally made the language less Latinate and more like the King James Version.

Yes, some form, particularly the one found HERE.

 

[rsr]

In the translators to the readers, Miles Smith, responding to Roman Catholic critics of the new Bible, says that "Now to the latter we answer, that we do not deny, nay, we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English set forth by men of our profession (for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God: ... " (emphasis added).

This would seem to say that the translators had not yet read the Douay OT; perhaps it means that Smith himself had not seen it. Or perhaps the translators had possession of the first volume of the OT (published in 1609) but not the second volume of the OT.

 

[rlvaughn]

That seems it would have to mean that at least Smith had not seen it (although it could allow that he had seen parts of the OT, I suppose). Perhaps this latter (seen Vol. 1, since he says "whole Bible") is the accurate interpretation. If some of the words are not in the NT, then it would seem that they had to see them in the OT. The NT version at Google Books appears to be the 1582 without any revision/modernization.

 

[Rippon]

In the translators to the readers, Miles Smith, responding to Roman Catholic critics of the new Bible, says that "Now to the latter we answer, that we do not deny, nay, we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English set forth by men of our profession (for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God: ... " (emphasis added).

This would seem to say that the translators had not yet read the Douay OT; perhaps it means that Smith himself had not seen it. Or perhaps the translators had possession of the first volume of the OT (published in 1609) but not the second volume of the OT.

I believe that Miles Smith meant translations throughout time --not just in the 85 years or so since the first Tyndale version came out.

 

[rlvaughn]

In the translators to the readers...

The quote I gave above -- "...we have shunned the obscurity of the Papists..." -- also comes from the Translators to the Reader rather than the Epistle Dedicatory. I didn't carefully check the source beyond the Wikisource heading I saw near the top.

I believe that Miles Smith meant translations throughout time --not just in the 85 years or so since the first Tyndale version came out.

If he were referring to Catholic translations into English with "theirs", it would have to be Rheims and Douay, wouldn't it, since they were the first? But "the very meanest translation of the Bible in English" would refer to any of them.
.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Six Hour Warning

This thread will be closed sometime after 4:30 PM Pacific.

 

[rsr]

If he were referring to Catholic translations into English with "theirs", it would have to be Rheims and Douay, wouldn't it, since they were the first?

That's my reading of it.

But "the very meanest translation of the Bible in English" would refer to any of them.

I think that would apply to the "men of our profession," i.e., Protestant translators, but would not necessarily include Catholic versions, the complete work of which Smith said he hadn't seen.

 

[AV]

Logos1560,
I think we need a days man betwixt us; we do not seem to be having a conversation. You are not understanding me and claiming that I am missing all your scintillating points. And I'm getting wearied trying to get to the root of the matter. But I appreciate you corresponding.
Thanks again.