KJV 2

In the previous thread, one poster incorrectly suggested that it was being negative concerning the KJV to accept that the KJV translators were honest when they pointed out that they did not provide an English rendering for every original-language word of Scripture in their underlying texts.

How is it being positive concerning the KJV to suggest in effect that the KJV translators were dishonest by trying to claim or suggest that the KJV is an every-word perfect translation when the KJV translators acknowledged that it was not?

According to its own title page and its preface, the 1611 KJV professed to be translated from the original languages. According to its title page for the New Testament, the 1611 KJV's New Testament was "newly translated out of the original Greek." The first rule for the translating referred to “the truth of the original.” The sixth rule and fifteen rule referred to “Hebrew” and to “Greek.” Lancelot Andrewes (1555-1626), a KJV translator, wrote: "Look to the original, as, for the New Testament, the Greek text; for the Old, the Hebrew" (Pattern of Catechistical Doctrine, p. 59). Gustavus Paine pointed out that another KJV translator John Rainolds (1549-1607) "urged study of the word of God in the Hebrew and Greek, 'not out of the books of translation'" (Men Behind the KJV, p. 84). Mordechai Feingold cited where KJV translator John Rainolds asked: “Are not they blind, who prefer a translation, and such a translation before the original?” (Labourers, p. 121). John Rainolds was asking his question of those who advocated a Latin Vulgate-only theory but his question would also apply to those who advocate a KJV-only theory?

In a sermon on Roman 1:16, Miles Smith (?-1624) referred to “the fountain of the prophets and apostles, which are the only authentic pen-men, and registers of the Holy Ghost” (Sermons, p. 75). In the preface to the 1611 KJV entitled "The Translators to the Reader," Miles Smith favorably quoted Jerome as writing “that as the credit of the old books (he meaneth the Old Testament) is to be tried by the Hebrew volumes, so of the New by the Greek tongue, he meaneth the original Greek. Then Miles Smith presented the view of the KJV translators as follows: "If truth be to be tried by these tongues [Hebrew and Greek], then whence should a translation be made, but out of them? These tongues therefore, we should say the Scriptures, in those tongues, we set before us to translate, being the tongues in which God was pleased to speak to his church by his prophets and apostles." In this preface, Miles Smith wrote: “If you ask what they had before them, truly it was the Hebrew text of the Old Testament, the Greek of the New.” Earlier on the third page of this preface, Miles Smith referred to “the original” as “being from heaven, not from earth.” Writing for all the translators, Miles Smith noted: “If anything be halting, or superfluous, or no so agreeable to the original, the same may be corrected, and the truth set in place.” Miles Smith observed: “No cause therefore why the word translated should be denied to be the word, or forbidden to be current, notwithstanding that 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 indured with an extraordinary measure of God’s Spirit, and privileged with the privilege of infallibility, had not their hand? The Romanists therefore in refusing to hear, and daring to burn the word translated, did no less then despite the Spirit of grace, from whom originally it proceeded, and whose sense and meaning, as well as man’s weakness would enable, it did express.”

Laurence Vance cited the report of the British delegates (including KJV translator Samuel Ward) to the 1618 Synod of Dort that included a reference to “the truth of the original text” (King James, His Bible, p. 47). In the dedication to King James in the 1611, Thomas Bilson (1546-1616) also acknowledged that the KJV was a translation made “out of the original sacred tongues.“ John Eadie noted that the account of the Hampton Court conference written by Patrick Galloway, the king’s Scottish chaplain, [“an account revised by the king himself”] stated “that a translation be made of the whole Bible, as consonant as can be to the original Hebrew and Greek” (English Bible, II, p. 179).

Daniel Featley (1582-1645), who was a chaplain of KJV translator George Abbot, who was appointed to the Westminster Assembly of Divines, and who may have been a KJV translator according to the British Museum list of KJV translators, asserted what could be soundly regarded as the typical Church of England and Protestant view of that day. In 1624, Daniel Featley wrote: “We believe the Originals of the two Testaments, in Hebrew and Greek, to be authentical, and of undoubted authority“ (The Roman Fisher, p. 98). Daniel Featley wrote: “No translation can equal the authority of the original, much less be preferred before it” (Appendix to the Fishers Net, pp. 69-70). In a later book published in 1646, Daniel Featley wrote: “For no translation is simply authentical, or the undoubted word of God. In the undoubted word of God there can be no error. But in translations there may be, and are errors. The Bible translated therefore is not the undoubted word of God, but so far only as it agreeth with the original” (Dippers Dipt, p. 1). Concerning translations, Daniel Featley asserted: “For there is none in which there are not some mistakes, more or less” (p. 74). Daniel Featley added: “Other slips must be born with in translations, or else we must read none at all till we have a translation given by divine inspiration, as the originals are” (Ibid.).

 

Stratton7 said:
↑

"A good chunk of people that hold only to the KJB do not believe the translators had special revelation but that the inspiration is through perfect preservation".

I agree with this analysis. The KJV translators were not moved upon by the Holy Ghost in the same way the Apostles were. However, they were given guidance by the Spirit of God during the translation, thus GIVING THEM THE UNDERSTANDING for a perfected translation by Holy Ghost inspiration, for “there is a spirit in man, and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding” (Job 32:8; II Timothy 3:16) KJV.

This is all in fulfillment of God's promises of preservation by divine providence. Now some notable scholars say quote, "God does not work in that way." My questions on that are this, how do you know that?

1) Did God speak to you verbally or in a vision to tell you He does not work in this way?
2) Are there any specific Scriptural references you can share with us that claim God does not work in this way?
3) Is the source of your knowledge on 'how God works' from man or God?
4) If from God, can you share your testimony or Scriptural references?
5) If from Man, can you share which man told you this?

"All Scripture is given by inspiration of God" (II Tim 3:16) KJV. I guess this begs the question, "Do you have the Scriptures"?

This matter is a spiritual one, not a scientific one, for we are talking about a BOOK authored by the Holy Ghost. Spiritual discernment is needed to understand God’s Word AND HIS TIMING AND WORK THROUGH A TRANSLATION, of which the ‘science’ has been unable to do. ‘Human reasoning,’ as some have mentioned quite a bit in this thread, comes from the ‘science,’ not from Bible believers that trust in God’s promise of preservation, even in a translation. Thus when you hear the scholars say “God does not work in that way” as referring to a translation being perfect, well, that is according to them and not from the Word of God.

 

Do some accept and hold their KJV-only teaching first and then later interpret verses such as 2 Timothy 3:16 and Job 32:8 to conform them to their already accepted view?

Do these two verses (2 Timothy 3:16 and Job 32:8) use the same original-language word in the same exact sense concerning the same exact subject that would indicate that they should be considered real parallel passages?

Henry A. Virkler noted: “It is important, though, to distinguish between verbal parallels and real parallels. Verbal parallels are those that use similar words but are discussing different ideas (the similarity is more verbal than real)” (Christian’s Guide to Critical Thinking, p. 38). Henry Virkler observed: “Real parallels are those that speak of the same idea or same event” (Ibid.). James Sire asserted: “When two or more unrelated texts are treated as if they belonged together, we have the fallacy of collapsing contexts” (Scripture Twisting, p. 58). James Sire defined and explained the reading error collapsing contexts as follows: “two or more verses which have little or nothing to do with each other are put together as if one were a commentary on the other(s)” (p. 156).

 

Your inconsistent reasoning contradicts itself. You suggest that the KJV translators were not moved upon by the Holy Ghost in the same way the Apostles were and yet you directly turn around and try to claim the same Holy Ghost inspiration that the apostles had for the KJV translators.

 

I see you are having difficulty reading both CONTEXT and CAPITAL letters. Let the readers discern that, no explanation is needed.

 

The Holy Spirit worked thru them no more no less then He has with the translation teams for ther Nas/Esv and the Nkjv!

 

I have yet to read the rest of the new thread so far so hopefully I’m not repeating anything-
But is it possible that these men unknowingly were used by God to keep His word perfectly preserved? Is God not perfect? Hasn’t God used men unknowingly throughout history to accomplish His will?

 

God promise to preserve His word refers to just the Hebrew and Greek sources texts for us today!

 

Agreed. If one were to ascribe to the KJV a perfection its translators expressly deny, rather than elevate the former, it would make liars of the latter.

 

Historical evidence demonstrates that the KJV translators themselves held the same basic view in agreement with the Scriptures that a KJV-only poster suggested supposedly originated with B. B. Warfield.

 

They would have looked upon the Nkjv as being the worthy successor to their Kjv!

 

‘KJVO is by necessity based on a second divine and special revelation in the translation. There is no logical way around it.’

The original Apostles received the divine revelation and WROTE, then by God’s providence and preservation He made sure these inspired Words of God were TRANSLATED properly by giving the KJV translators “understanding’ (Job 32:8) KJV. I hardly consider this a ‘special revelation,’ which is a cooked-up word to add drama to the issue of preservation. But call it what you want, or whatever others say, but the fact is that this all a fulfillment of many such promises of preservation (Psalms 12:6-7) KJV.

‘With the KJV, it is just subjective preference and tradition (it is something anyone can say about their favorite translation’.

I hardly consider changing “God” to a ‘he,’ or a ‘who,’ or a ‘who he’ in I Timothy 3:16 is a matter of preference, it is a matter of rejecting corruptions of Scriptures in the modern versions. Even Dr. James White believed I Timothy 3:16 reads “God” in the Greek texts in this example (The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust the Modern Translations? p. 261).

‘Part of the issue is that the KJV has translated certain words in a more specific way. The "Red sea", for example, rather than "the sea of reeds". This would constitute a special revelation because it is much more specific than God's Word as found in the Source text.’

Which Hebrew ‘source text’ are you referring to? Red Sea is the correct translation as by Holy Ghost inspiration when Luke (Stephens sermon) and Paul both translated the Hebrew into the Greek in Acts 7:36 and Hebrews 11:29 (KJV). They said "Red Sea."

‘Was God's Word not preserved in English prior to the KJV???? If not, then the argument for the KJVO based on preservation is invalid. If so, then the KJV is a revision of a perfectly preserved Word’.

The KJV translators stated that even the prior English versions were ‘good’ versions, and out of these ‘many good ones,’ they were to translate “ONE PRINCIPLE GOOD ONE!” It was a process all done in God’s timing. This question always comes up, “Where was the perfect translation before 1611?” The question should be where was it before the invention of the printing press in 1440? Before 1440 it took 10 months or more to compile manuscripts into just ONE book. There was no 'Books a Million' back then, so these questions are void of historical considerations.

‘Personally, I believe the KJVO vs _____ argument is a result of biblical illiteracy (not illiteracy in terms of reading these translations but illiteracy in terms of not grasping the concept of God's Word, and a general illiteracy in terms of not understanding the concept of a translation)’.

We could also say the same thing, that the critics are illiterate on the doctrine of preservation and also lack faith in God’s Word. Works both ways.

‘I agree with you in regards to arguments against a translation being perfect. The KJV is a perfect translation (as is the ESV, NASB, and NIV). They are perfect translations - NOT perfect renderings of the text being translated (we have to remember they are translations)’.

That seems a contradiction. How can they be perfect and not perfect translations at the same time? And what text specifically are you referring to? The modern versions differ from the KJV in thousands of places and all say something different. I hardly consider that perfection.

‘I do not use the KJV as a primary Bible. I have, however, used the TR 1550 Greek text for study. How is the KJV superior? It isn't. We have to remember that these are translations we are reading.’

I am glad you use the KJV, that is good news. And God is not bound by languages and Scripture shows a translation can be 100% perfect. Joseph spoke to his brothers in the Egyptian language in Genesis chapter 42 for “he spake unto them by an interpreter” (Genesis 42:23) KJV. This is a perfect translation from Egyptian into Hebrew.

King Artaxerxes of Persia received a letter in the “Syrian tongue” (Ezra 4:7), yet a “copy of the letter” (Ezra 4:11) was translated into Hebrew, a perfect translation. God is not bound to language barriers. Mark translated an Arabic word by Jesus in Mark 5:41 into Greek perfectly.

Paul spoke Hebrew in Acts 22 and Luke translated it perfectly into Greek, and also when Paul heard from Jesus in the Hebrew tongue (Acts 26:14). We could go on and on. Only the scholars will tell you a translation cannot be perfect, but God is not bound by languages, nor the scholars' opinions.

Blessings to you….

 

the Holy Spirit was JUST as involved in the making of the Geneva and the Nkjv translations as he was in the 1611 Kjv!

 

I do now, but did not always as in Bible college in the early 80s I had an NIV in hand.

Yes, I believe God used many good English translations during the preservation process.

God did not negate His Word till 1611 in the same way He did not negate salvation by waiting 4000 years to send Jesus Christ in the flesh.

For me personally, when I switched back to the KJV from my NIV, I felt an 'unction' (I John 2:20) that I did not have when ministering from the NIV. A fellow minister even told me "I was dry." That changed several years later as I started memorizing the KJV which was easier due to fewer syllables. My suspicions also were raised when asking my Greek professor honest questions and he was unable to answer them and got frustrated with me in class.

P.S. I am getting older also..... lol