Featured The KJV Translators Superior Language Skills

Do you claim that it is a glaring problem that the 1539 Great Bible has verses in one of the Psalms that the KJV does not have?

Do you claim that it is a glaring problem that several of the pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV is a revision did not have verses which are found in the 1611 KJV?

Perhaps it is a glaring problem that you subjectively assume that one English translation is the standard for trying other English Bibles

 

The same could be said for the 1560 Geneva Bible.

The common people of the English-speaking world accepted the 1560 Geneva Bible as the word of God in English for over 50 years [several KJV-only authors acknowledge that it was accepted for around 100 years]. The makers of the KJV even acknowledged that the pre-1611 English Bibles such as the Geneva Bible were the word of God. It was the Geneva Bible that is usually quoted as the word of God in English in the preface to the 1611 KJV. Several of the KJV translators continued to preach from the Geneva Bible for years after 1611.

The makers of the KJV made many changes, including some significant ones and doctrinal ones, to the 1560 Geneva Bible, this previous accepted standard for the word of God in English. Renderings in the 1560 Geneva Bible that were understood to teach Presbyterian church government or congregational church government were changed in the 1611 KJV to be more favorable to the Church of England's episcopal church government views.

Would a consistent application of your stated reasoning suggest that the Church of England makers of the KJV were wrong to make significant changes to the pre-1611 word of God in English?

 

You got some things mixed up in the above.

The so-called Cranmer Bible was best known as The Great Bible. There were not two separate translations.The Great Bible was first published in 1539 and prepared by Myles Coverdale.

The Geneva Bible was first published in 1560 --21 years after the Great Bible. The last edition of the Geneva Bible was made in 1644.

 

NONE of them though in ways that affected any eseential doctrines though!

 

The Esv, along wiht other modern versions, are all stating that Jesus did not see Himself as needing to stay as He was, and refusing to incarnate and become a Man!

 

The differences are due to which Greek text is being used as the translation basis, and again, one holding to the CT could say that the TR addedto the Original text itself. When those holding to TR say moder transaltionssubract from scriptures, are always assuming the TR got it always right!

 

Again, there would be missing IF the TR got the txt right reagrding what the originals stated, but what the TR was wrong in places?

 

My understanding was that the HCSB wasto have been translated from the Majority Greek text, but when the Editor died, it switched to CT. that would have been inteersting if stayed on MT!

 

Either version able to be purchased, or still online only?

 

Would think that being expert in Koine Greek would be better than classical greek when it came to transaltion, and still have never red when the 1611 team thought that either their Bible was inpired, or was perfect.

 

But the horse-like unicorn was depicted on KJ's coat-of-arms, & also on the coat-of-arms of Britain itself. While there's nothing I know of from the AV men explaining what they believe a unicorn was, I'm figuring they went by their king's coat-of-arms.

Quite-likely, most of those man had never seen a real lion either, but had no reason to doubt their existence.

I'm not faulting the AV men for believing in the nexistence of horse-like unicorns, satyrs, or cockatrices, as the had no intel otherwise, but I'm just reminding us that their knowledge was quite sparse compared to ours. The wisest of them would've been astounded by an everyday flashlight.

 

They did the best with what they had to work with, but there have been real advancementsmade in the biblical languages and historical/cultural facts since 1611!

 

Never 'red' is right. Try spelling inspired correctly as well as translation.

 

Oh, the irony!:

 

No irony. You have not quoted anything of mine from this thread.

 

Do you agree with what was said about the translation practice then?

 

There were several editions of the Great Bible. As I understand it, there are some actual differences/revisions between the 1539 edition, the 1540 edition, the 1541 edition.

At least one edition of the Great Bible was printed with a preface by Archbishop Cranmer, and that edition is sometimes called the Cranmer Bible.

 

Of all peoples of the earth, English speakers have been overly and richly blest with an abundance of English Bibles.

Of any given passage of Scripture I can align over 20 English renderings on my screen (even more if I so chose).

To whom much is given... ?

Ya, ya ya I'm a white supremacist, white privileged, white Anglo Israeli, white whatever blah, blah ad naseum ...
mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa... oh wait thats Latin!