1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Featured The KJV is A Revision

Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by SavedByGrace, Feb 5, 2021.

Top Posters
Page 1 of 3
  1. SavedByGrace

    SavedByGrace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2020
    Messages:
    10,152
    Likes Received:
    441
    Faith:
    Baptist
    "The rules of procedure specified that the Bishops’ Bible was to be followed and “as little altered as the truth of the original will permit”; that certain other translations should be used where they agreed better with the text, namely, “Tindoll’s, Matthew’s, Coverdale’s, Whitchurch’s [= the Great Bible, so named from the name of the printer], and Geneva”; that “the Old Ecclesiastical Words [were] to be kept, viz. the Word Church not be translated Congregation, &c.”; and that no marginal notes were to be used except for necessary explanation of Hebrew or Greek words. Most of the remaining fifteen rules dealt with method of procedure...Miles Smith, begins in a leisurely and learned fashion, justifying the principle of Bible translation. It then goes on to declare the necessity of this new rendering, explaining that it is a revision, not a new translation, and that the revisers, who had the original Hebrew and Greek texts before them, steered a course between the Puritan and Roman versions. Unfortunately, modern editions of the King James Bible usually omit this preface, thus depriving the reader of the orientation originally provided concerning the purpose of the translators and their procedures and principles." (Bruce Metzger; Bible in Translation, The Ancient and English Versions)

    "With this reputation it is not surprising that he was invited to join the teams of translators assembled in Oxford, Cambridge and Westminster to undertake the revision of the English Bible. And it is important to note that the task was a revision, not a new work. To quote from the instructions issued to the teams:The ordinary Bible read in church, commonly called the Bishops’ Bible (is) to be followed, and as little altered as the truth of the original will permit. ... These translations (are) to be used when they agree better with the text than the Bishops’ Bible: Tyndale’s, Coverdale’s, Matthew’s, Whitchurch’s (viz. the Great Bible), (and) Geneva.As is well known, these translations constituted the mainline succession of English Bibles in the sixteenth century. Coverdale, Matthew and the Great Bible were basically Tyndale with the missing parts supplied. The Geneva made fresh use of sources, but was still identifiably within the Tyndale tradition. The Bishops’ Bible, created by the Elizabethan hierarchy to avoid the use in church of the tendentious glosses of the Geneva, and its contentious translations of important ecclesiastical terms such as church and bishop, was in turn a revision of the Great Bible." (from, Miles Smith as Bible Translator)
     
    #1 SavedByGrace, Feb 5, 2021
  2. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    6,217
    Likes Received:
    405
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Yes, it is a fact that the KJV is a revision of several pre-1611 English Bibles including even the 1582 Rheims (not mentioned in the rules).

    The KJV is both a revision and a translation, but it is more a revision since over 60% of the KJV's text comes from one of the pre-1611 English Bibles.

    Therefore, the KJV is the word of God translated into English in the same sense or in the same way that the pre-1611 English Bibles are the word of God translated into English.

    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 or properties that were not present in them?

    How could a pre-1611 English Bible give the KJV something that it does not have itself?

    How could a revision of an earlier English Bible have any qualities or properties that were not also present in that earlier Bible translation?

    No KJV-only advocates have made any sound, compelling case for trying to claim that the KJV is supposedly the word of God translated into English in some different sense than the pre-1611 English Bibles are. They have made no sound, compelling, scriptural case concerning how they assume or try to claim that the KJV supposedly has any different qualities or attributes than the pre-1611 English Bibles have.
     
    #2 Logos1560, Feb 5, 2021
    Last edited: Feb 5, 2021
  3. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    6,217
    Likes Received:
    405
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Concerning the makers of the KJV, John Eadie noted: “These scholars are usually called Translators, and they appropriate the name to themselves in their Dedication to King James. But it is to be borne in mind that the first rule set before them shows that in the strictest sense they were simply revisers of the Bishops’ Bible, itself a revision of the Great Bible, and it again a revision of Matthew’s Bible—that is, of Tyndale and Coverdale” (English Bible, Vol. II, p. 193). John Eadie also observed: “This [fourteenth] rule the translators did not specially regard, for they knew that these versions were a series of revisions, and therefore they revised the Bishops’ by the help of its contemporary, the Genevan” (p. 218).

    Glenn Conjurske observed: “The revisions come down from William Tyndale in two distinct lines of descent, one through the Great Bible and the Bishops’ Bible, and the other through the Geneva Bible. Added to this was also the influence of the independent Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament published in 1582” (Olde Paths, April, 1993, p. 85). Glenn Conjurske added: “What may be considered the main line of transmission came through Coverdale, Matthew, the Great Bible, and the Bishops’ Bible, each of these respectively being a revision of the former, and the King James Version being a revision of the last, the Bishops’ Bible” (p. 86). Glenn Conjurske continued: “The other line, through the Geneva Bible, was much more sweeping in its revisions. Accuracy was its main concern and its main characteristic” (Ibid.).

    Concerning the fourteenth rule given to the translators, John Eadie observed: “The order is peculiar, in that it places Matthew before Coverdale, and calls the Great Bible by the name of one of its printers—Whitchurch. The reference to Matthew was superfluous, as his Bible is simply made up of Tyndale and Coverdale” (English Bible, Vol. II, p. 218). John Eadie concluded that the KJV translators did not follow this fourteenth rule because they realized that the pre-1611 English Bibles mentioned in the rule were a series of revisions. The fact that the KJV translators made use of an English translation not listed in the fourteenth rule is also evidence that they did not strictly follow it.
     
    #3 Logos1560, Feb 5, 2021
  4. SavedByGrace

    SavedByGrace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2020
    Messages:
    10,152
    Likes Received:
    441
    Faith:
    Baptist
    More from Metzger...

    "There were two matters of editorial policy that the translators wished to make clear to the reader. The first concerned the use of marginal notes where there is uncertainty about the wording of the original text or about its interpretation. Although the translators were aware that some persons might fear that such notes would bring into question the authority of the Scriptures, they were convinced that such notes were necessary. They argued that “God had been pleased in his divine providence to scatter here and there words and sentences that are difficult and ambiguous, [which] do not touch on doctrinal points that have to do with salvation, but on matters of less importance.” In such instances, “we should be diffident rather than confident, and if we must make a choice, choose modesty with St. Augustine, who recognized that ‘It is better to be reserved about things that are not revealed, than to fight about things that are uncertain.’” The second matter concerned the degree of verbal variety or uniformity to be adopted in translating. In the preface, the translators vindicate the practice of variety (in which they indulge very freely) of translating one word in the original by many English words, partly on the intelligible ground that it is not always possible to find one word that will express all the meanings of the Greek or Hebrew, partly on the somewhat childish plea that it would be unfair to choose some words for the high honor of being the channels of God’s truth and to pass over others as unworthy.... The aim of the revisers is clearly stated in the preface. It was not to make “a new translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one … but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones one principal good one.” Although usually called a translation it is in fact merely a revision of the Bishops’ Bible, as this itself was a revision of the Great Bible and the Great Bible a revision of Coverdale and Tyndale. A great deal of the praise, therefore, that is given to it belongs to its predecessors. For the idiom and vocabulary, Tyndale deserves the greatest credit; for the melody and harmony, Coverdale; for scholarship and accuracy, the Geneva version."

    The KJVO folk should call themselves, James-Bishops-Great-Coverdale-Tyndale-Geneva-Matthews-Rheims, Bible"; maybe in the correct order. :Biggrin
     
    #4 SavedByGrace, Feb 5, 2021
    • Informative Informative x 1
  5. SavedByGrace

    SavedByGrace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2020
    Messages:
    10,152
    Likes Received:
    441
    Faith:
    Baptist
    thanks for the info. What is rather surprising, is the fact that the KJV translators were of the highest scholarship. many of them leading in languages, not just Hebrew, Greek and Latin. Yet then did not consider a completely new translation, something worthy of them! They could have examined afresh the textual evidence available to them, and produced a made a more perfect version. For what they actually did, they could have got some good editors to examine the previous versions, and then compile their own Revised Bible!
     
    #5 SavedByGrace, Feb 5, 2021
  6. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    6,217
    Likes Received:
    405
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Perhaps KJV-only folk should admit the truth that the Church of England makers of the KJV and they are in effect "multi-versionists" since the KJV is a revision of multiple, textually-varying and translation-varying pre-1611 English Bibles.
     
    #6 Logos1560, Feb 5, 2021
  7. SavedByGrace

    SavedByGrace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2020
    Messages:
    10,152
    Likes Received:
    441
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I would have to say though, that the KJV is probably the best Bible version ever produced in any language, and very much blessed by and used by God.
     
    #7 SavedByGrace, Feb 5, 2021
    • Agree Agree x 3
  8. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    52,624
    Likes Received:
    2,742
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Would not say the best, but would say by far the most used and influential of all time!
     
    #8 Yeshua1, Feb 5, 2021
  9. SavedByGrace

    SavedByGrace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2020
    Messages:
    10,152
    Likes Received:
    441
    Faith:
    Baptist
    name one that is better in English?
     
    #9 SavedByGrace, Feb 5, 2021
  10. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    52,624
    Likes Received:
    2,742
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Nas Nkjv
     
    #10 Yeshua1, Feb 5, 2021
  11. SavedByGrace

    SavedByGrace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2020
    Messages:
    10,152
    Likes Received:
    441
    Faith:
    Baptist
    NKJV, second. NAS, not a chance, as it is from inferior Greek NT mss.
     
    #11 SavedByGrace, Feb 5, 2021
  12. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    52,624
    Likes Received:
    2,742
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Many textual experts would disagree with you on the Nas!
     
    #12 Yeshua1, Feb 5, 2021
  13. SavedByGrace

    SavedByGrace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2020
    Messages:
    10,152
    Likes Received:
    441
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Check for yourself what NT text the NAS used
     
    #13 SavedByGrace, Feb 5, 2021
  14. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    52,624
    Likes Received:
    2,742
    Faith:
    Baptist
    28NA
     
    #14 Yeshua1, Feb 5, 2021
    • Informative Informative x 2
  15. SavedByGrace

    SavedByGrace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2020
    Messages:
    10,152
    Likes Received:
    441
    Faith:
    Baptist
    the NA28 is inferior to the KJV textual basis . 1 Timothy 3.16 and 1 John 5.7 are 2 examples
     
    #15 SavedByGrace, Feb 5, 2021
    • Agree Agree x 1
  16. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    52,624
    Likes Received:
    2,742
    Faith:
    Baptist
    1 john has issues!
     
    #16 Yeshua1, Feb 5, 2021
    • Winner Winner x 1
  17. SavedByGrace

    SavedByGrace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2020
    Messages:
    10,152
    Likes Received:
    441
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Acts 8.37
     
    #17 SavedByGrace, Feb 5, 2021
    • Agree Agree x 1
  18. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    6,217
    Likes Received:
    405
    Faith:
    Baptist
    In many places where the NKJV varies from the KJV, it is often in agreement with the 1560 Geneva Bible.

    Titus 1:12 always (Geneva, NKJV) alway (KJV)
    Titus 2:2 love (Geneva, NKJV) charity (KJV)
    Titus 3:3 in times past (Geneva) sometimes (KJV) once (NKJV)
    Titus 3:13 lack nothing (Geneva, NKJV) nothing be wanting (KJV)

    Philemon 1:7 hearts (Geneva, NKJV) bowels (KJV)

    Heb. 3:1 Therefore (Geneva, NKJV) Wherefore (KJV)
    Heb. 3:6 whose house we are (Geneva, NKJV) whose house are we (KJV)
    Heb. 3:9 Where (Geneva, NKJV) When (KJV)
    Heb. 3:18 obeyed not (Geneva) believed not (KJV) did not obey (NKJV)
    Heb. 4:2 word that they heard (Geneva) word preached (KJV) word which they heard (NKJV)
    Heb. 4:7 appointed (Geneva) limiteth (KJV) designates (NKJV)
    Heb. 4:11 disobedience (Geneva, NKJV) unbelief (KJV)
    Heb. 4:12 lively (Geneva) quick (KJV) living (NKJV)
    Heb. 4:13 open (Geneva, NKJV) opened (KJV)
    Heb. 6:6 If they fall (Geneva, NKJV) If they shall fall (KJV)
    Heb. 6:6 crucify again (Geneva, NKJV) crucify … afresh (KJV)
    Heb. 6:8 near (Geneva, NKJV) nigh (KJV)
    Heb. 7:19 near (Geneva, NKJV) nigh (KJV)
    Heb. 8:1 sitteth (Geneva) is set (KJV) is seated (NKJV)
    Heb. 8:4 seeing there are priests (Geneva) seeing that there are priests (KJV) since there are priests (NKJV)
    Heb. 8:10 be their God (Geneva, NKJV) be to them a God (KJV)
    Heb. 9:6 the service (Geneva) the service of God (KJV) the services (NKJV)
    Heb. 10:4 of bulls and goats (Geneva, NKJV) of bulls and of goats (KJV)
    Heb. 10:7 Then I said (Geneva, NKJV) Then said I (KJV)
    Heb. 10:13 tarrieth (Geneva) expecting (KJV) waiting (NKJV)
    Heb. 10:23 hope (Geneva, NKJV) faith (KJV)
    Heb. 10:33 Partly while you (Geneva, NKJV) Partly whilst ye (KJV)
    Heb. 11:5 taken away (Geneva, NKJV) translated (KJV)
    Heb. 11:7 household (Geneva, NKJV) house (KJV)
    Heb. 11:9 tents (Geneva, NKJV) tabernacles (KJV)
    Heb. 12:28 shaken (Geneva, NKJV) moved (KJV)
    Heb. 13:4 among all (Geneva, NKJV) in all (KJV)
    Heb. 13:16 distribute (Geneva) communicate (KJV) share (NKJV)
    Heb. 13:24 Know that (Geneva, NKJV) Know this, that (KJV)

    James 1:3 Knowing that (Geneva, NKJV) Knowing this, that (KJV)
    James 1:4 lacking nothing (Geneva, NKJV) wanting nothing (KJV)
    James 1:5 reproached no man (Geneva) upbraideth not (KJV) without reproach (NKJV)
    James 2:6 the rich oppress (Geneva, NKJV) rich men oppress (KJV)
    James 3:4 rudder (Geneva, NKJV) helm (KJV)
    James 3:12 olives (Geneva, NKJV) olive berries (KJV)
    James 4:4 maketh himself the enemy (Geneva) is the enemy (KJV) makes himself an enemy (NKJV)
    James 4:6 to the humble (Geneva, NKJV) unto the humble (KJV)
    James 4:8 near (Geneva, NKJV) nigh (KJV)
    James 4:10 will lift (Geneva, NKJV) shall lift (KJV)
    James 5:11 count them blessed (Geneva, NKJV) count them happy (KJV)
    James 5:11 and merciful (Geneva, NKJV) and of tender mercy (KJV)
     
    #18 Logos1560, Feb 6, 2021
    • Like Like x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • Useful Useful x 1
  19. Hark

    Hark Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2014
    Messages:
    1,408
    Likes Received:
    63
    Faith:
    Baptist
    1 John 5:6 This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. 7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one. 9 If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son. ~ KJV

    1 John 5:7 originally was in scripture because how can verse 9 be true unless verse 7 existed to show how & why the witness of God is greater then men's of His Son?

    There are extrabiblical sources that proves 1 John 5:7 was originally scripture when these sources refer to that verse.

    250 AD Cyprian of Carthage, wrote, "And again, of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost it is written: "And the three are One" in his On The Lapsed, On the Novatians,

    350 AD Priscillian referred to it [Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, Academia Litterarum Vindobonensis, vol. xviii, p. 6.]

    350 AD Idacius Clarus referred to it [Patrilogiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina by Migne, vol. 62, col. 359.]

    350 AD Athanasius referred to it in his De Incarnatione

    398 AD Aurelius Augustine used it to defend Trinitarianism in De Trinitate against the heresy of Sabellianism

    415 AD Council of Carthage appealed to 1 John 5:7 when debating the Arian belief (Arians didn't believe in the deity of Jesus Christ)

    But these sources would have been unnecessary to prove that 1 John 5:7 s originally scripture because 1 John 5:9 falls flat on how the witness of God is greater than men's witness of His Son when you remove verse 7.
     
    #19 Hark, Feb 6, 2021
    • Like Like x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  20. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    52,624
    Likes Received:
    2,742
    Faith:
    Baptist
    And yet Eramus himself could not find it in his greek text until 3rd edition, having being ordered to do such!
     
    #20 Yeshua1, Feb 8, 2021
    • Like Like x 1
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Page 1 of 3
Loading...