Could the 1611 KJV have been better?

Jim1999: //Oh, good grief. What is a preacher to do?//

That is what Worship Leaders (formerly: song leaders) are
for. If you run out of words to explain, sing a song

 

BUT what kind of song should be sung? Seems like another topic for another debate IMHO. OH wait, we've already had that one! :tongue3:

 

As has been discussed in another thread...Every valid translation is perfect and inerrant for its target readership or audience as someone reads it aloud. An example is Eliot's Algonquin-language version of 1663. This Bible, if translated into English, is somewhat different from our English versions in common use, but it was suited to the Algonquin language. it was written in the English alphabet, and was meant to be read aloud by missionaries to the Algonquin-speaking people who had no written language. Thus, GOD used a translation of three languages, translated into another language, written in the language of the first language, to be read aloud by people who didn't use the receptor language, to an audience who DID use the receptor language, to steer many souls to CHRIST. Thus, this Bible was perfect and inerrant for its target audience.

God uses many means to present His word to people. What seems imperfect to us IS perfect for its intended target peoples.

Notice how GOD takes language changes into account, changes that HE has caused/allowed. The word "bloody" appears often in the KJV, which was written before it became an offensive word in England, but in newer versions such as the NIV, it doesn't appear at all. (It appears but once in the HCSB, in a manner that cannot be construed as use of a "cussword".)

Not only is God able to present His word in understandable form in the language of any given time; He HAS done so in English continuously for over 600 years. Unlike some men, God is not limited to any one version or language style. The KJV and other older versions became frozen in time as their penultimate authors passed on, but the ULTIMATE AUTHOR is alive and in charge. As both God and His word are alive, he is well able to change His word to fit His changes in the language.

 

not so fast! here's one by Dr Mark Minnick, available either on
MP3:

http://www.bju.edu/resources/chapel/mp3/2006-09-20.mp3
http://www.bju.edu/resources/chapel/mp3/2006-09-21.mp3

or in text form (below).

http://www.f-b-f.org/WebMan/Article.asp?ID=4223&Count=true

:thumbs:

 

Well that may be so for you but personally my faith is not only founded in His word but in the witness of His Spirit as well which would exist even if I had no access to His Word.

God is able to teach us apart from His Word through the Spirit. True, He has chosen not to do it that way alone (through the witness of the Spirit) but He can and no doubt has in the past.

I don’t know why He left it in the hands of imperfect men but in 1613 those men proved just that and corrected their work.

If you do believe He caused a perfect English translation then which is the Bible He has chosen? It couldn’t be the 1611KJV because in 1613 the very men who translated it put together a list of changes to correct the errors they had made.

If you say that they were “just” spelling errors (and clearly some were more than just that) then do you believe God made these men (translators and printers) make these errors?

Do you believe that God makes “just” small mistakes like typos but not big ones like using the wrong word in a translation?

I answered your question, now please answer mine…

Can God make even the smallest mistake?
If not then why have there been to date hundreds of corrections to the 1611KJV by The Church of England? These Bibles still carry the Title of "The King James Bible Authorised to be read in the Churches (of England).

If the Church of England has authority of translational inspiration What then does that make the Church of England but the APOSTOLIC Church passed down through the Bishops of the Church by the Laying on of Hands that they (CofE) have claimed all along?

If you believe they have this authority then you shouldn't you immediately join this Church?

Isn’t it much more likely that imperfect men (KJV Translators) made mistakes in the translation of His Word by which led to many subsequent editions/revisions by the Church of England?

And BTW, was it God who led the KJV men to include the hereticalBooks of the Apocrypha in the First Edition of the 1611AV with no explanation whatsoever within the pages of their work as to their (Apocrypha) authority? They gave them chapter and verse as "other" Scriptures, they included them in cross references along with "other" Scripture and put them in the daily reading guide included in the AV along with the "other" Scriptures.

Was this "perfection"?


HankD

 

Hank,
One correction, mate. I grew up and was schooled in the Church of England schools and never were we taught that the Apocrypha was a part of scripture. We were taught that they were beneficial to study and read...period. Not part of inspired scripture, my friend, never.

Cheers,

Jim

 

Friend the "errors" that I am dealing with are really more than the spelling errors or translation errors which is bad enough. What I am talking about is flat out contradictions in the MV bibles. I have pointed out a couple of these in previous threads on the NIV. I do not find this in my KJV. Sure there were printing errors and spelling errors in the 1611 and God even provided that these would be corrected, but I have yet to find a contradiction in the KJV as I have found in the NIV. My God is an all sufficient God, and he loved us enough to provide us with his Holy Word in our language perfectly preserved. You see I have something that all of you who carry MV bibles don't have and that is a perfect trust that God has provided me with his Holy innerrant Word without having to have every bible man ever made, an education in Hebrew and Greek, and a whole library full of books to help me understand my Bible. Thank God for the Holy Ghost and an all sufficient God. When one Bible contradicts another bible you have problems whether you want to admit it or not and one of them is invalid.

 

Deacon, your definition of "perfect" is flawed in that you start out with the errant presupposition that the KJV is perfect down to the letter. This is not the case. Neither the KJV nor any other English Bible translation is "perfect" down to the letter. The KJV and other legitimate English Bible versions are perfect in that they all convey to us the plan of salvation and the other things that God intends for us to know. When you place your errant definition of "perfect" against all modern Bible versions you are naturally not going to find one of them that agrees word-for-word with the KJV. But your errant definition of "perfect" does not take into account that none of today's legitimate modern Bible versions contradict the KJV in matters of doctrine. True, there are versions like the NWT and the CWT which were "translated" so that Jehovah's Witnesses and Seventh Day Adventists can have a "bible" that agrees with their errant teachings. I'm not talking about such errant Bibles. What I am talking about is mainstream, modern Bible versions. Please show me where one single MV contradicts the KJV in true doctrinal issues. You cannot show this "proof" because it does not exist. Deacon, you need to abandon your false definition of "perfect" and realize that the MVs as well as the KJV are all perfect in matters of doctrine and the things God wants us to know.

Yes, the 1611 KJV could have been better, and so could the MVs as well. However, all of them are perfect in that they convey God's word to English speaking people. You cannot get any more perfect than that when mere men and women are involved in the translation of God's word. There cannot possibly be word-for-word perfection as your definition of "perfect" demands. But neither does the KJV meet your definition of "perfect" until you apply your errant presupposition that the KJV is perfect down to the letter. No Bible translation has ever met your skewed definition of perfect, and no Bible version will ever be able to meet your skewed definition of "perfect."

 

I understand Jim, but what I said was that there was not an explanation within the AV itself concerning the Apocrypha and its authority when it first appeared in 1611 and that at that time it was treated as if it were Scripture.

HankD

 

I'm another Ed, but I'm the one who generally prefers the NKJV, somewhat as does Amy.G.

I, at one time, really wanted to go for NKJVMTNASBO, but I never could keep all the letters straight (not to mention that I could not say it twice, without writing it down, first), in what all the letters meant. {Laugh} {laugh}

Then, I tried to become NKJV/MTO, but wound up becoming NKJV/MTO-EWILADV, and find most actually go for the last part of this - the "EWILADV " part, which incidentally stands for "Except When I Like A Different Version".

Uh- is it just ME, or does anyone else see the irony (not to mention the inconsistency) of the last part of this acronym, namely what is really emphasized?

Okay, now let's get beyond my attempts at 'humor' and irony, to the real issue.

"Could the 1611 KJV have been better?"

According to the ones who actually did the work, the answer is/was "Yes!" (That really should settle it!)

And to my knowledge, in virtually each and every version of the hundreds available in various languages, those who actually did the work say the same thing, in so many words, with a 'reverance' to the written Word of God.

Then why is it that the "Johnny-come-lately" crowd, who wants to climb on another's 'bandwagon', somehow always seems to have a 'more exalted' opinion of another's work, (regardless of whose it may be) than the ones who actually did the work?

Uh- what am I missing here??

Ed

 

I have all these things as well deacon and I agree that the KJV translators (while I don't subscribe to their Church of England doctrine) did a magnificent job in making the AV as humanly flawless as they possibly could searching out every knook and kranny over hundreds of years to remove the leaven of man and give us that provision that we both love, the KJV.

Also deacon remember that these things which you disdain ("an education in Hebrew and Greek, and a whole library full of books to help me understand my Bible"), were the hallmarks of the KJV translators. They had all these things and more with multiple degrees and worldly acclaim as experts in their fields.

In this case God did not choose simple/common earthy men (as He did the prophets and apostles) but extremely well educated and well read men, masters in their fields to give us the AV.

HankD

 

It seems that some believe that God could have used imperfect men to miraculously produce a perfect Bible; while others believe that God can use imperfect Bibles to miraculously produce 'perfected' men!

 

So, therefore (assuming you are consistent ), you would believe the Apocrypha is part of this "perfect" and "inspired" "perfection", no doubt? :BangHead:

(BTW, every word I have in "quotes" are words you have used, in some thread, on some post.)

Or are you really claiming it is better after having the "perfection" perfected?

BTW, I am not referring to typos, either, when I speak of perfecting "perfection", FTR.

You also wrote in another place -

Uh- is this a two-way street you live on, here?

And again -

Amen, Brother! Preach it! Uh- you do remember my bit about being 'consistent', yes??

Ed

 

Would not that "perfect translation of His words in our own language" apply to all?

So How come there are several thousand languages that have NO translation, perfect, OR even far less than perfect in their own language, to be accounted for?

Is that not somewhat of a double standard?

And if the question is numbers, would not the "perfect translation" first be found in Chinese, as close to one billion have that as their 'native language', and second in Hindi, as that is the 'native language' of some 1/2 billion, third in Spanish, since that is the 'native tongue' of about 400 million? English is only #4 in terms of 'native language', at some 375 million.

And why would God actually have made the choice of having the NT in Greek at some 12 million, and the OT in Hebrew which is the 'NL" of only some 7 million, and Aramaic, where I have no clue of how many speak it today, if any, realistically? Doesn't that sound like "a minority position" in all these cases, here?

Ed

 

I agree. So why throw out their work or toss it aside for something of less value. I do not have to study original languages to understand Gods Word because he allowed men who had knowledge in the original languages to translate an innerrant Bible for us. If I want to understand MV bibles I either have to accept the errors and contradictions in them as Gods mistake or I have to have a library of books wrote by some liberal explaining why the contradiction isn't a contradiction. I'm glad that I don't have to "check my common sense at the door" when I read the KJV.

 

Amen brother! I believe just that. God is able to use imperfect men to produce a perfect Bible. Moses wasn't perfect, not one prophet was perfect, not one apostle was perfect, and not one bible translator is perfect, but our God is and he can provide us with a perfect Bible.

 

You need to consider where the Great Bible, Tyndale Bible, and the Geneva Bible came from. The Vulgate had corrupted every one of these.

 

Say, Brother Logos1560, don't we have a copy of a write-up
of the Vulgate influences on the KJVs about?

Alas, this is one of the Double Standards of some of the KJVs
Onliests (KJVO): If the Latin Vulgate influences a specific translation
in a non-KJVs Translation it is the influence of the Devil;
If the Latin Vulgate influences a specifici translation
of a portion of the KJVs it is the influence of God.

Yes, the KJV could have been better.
Proof, it was made better:
I have several different KJVs:

The KJV1611 Edition - the Perfect translation
The KJV1769 Edition - the Perfecter translation
The KJV1873 Edition - the Perfectist translation

I use the first two on a daily basis along with
my favorite Bible since 2004: the
HCSB = Christian Standard Bible /Holman, 2003/ .

 

Logos1560: // ...
Mark 9:6 knew (Geneva) wist (Bishops’, KJV)
... //

Strangely, the six New Testament (NT) appearances
of 'wist' in the KJV1611 Edition were conserved
in the Modern Version (MV) KJV1769 Edition.
However the seven Old Testament (OT)
appearances of 'wist' in the KJV1611 Editon
are dropped for 'know' in the MV: KJV1769 Edition.

(numbers from e-sword)

Not only could the KJV have been translated better,
it WAS translated better.