The Origin of the KJV

Interesting thoughts. Do have sources so that we can look into more of this?

 

The Story Of Our Bible, How It Grew To Be What It Is [Google Books LINK]
The making of the King James Version starts on page 264

Rob

 

A few clarifications.
The Geneva Bible followed the existing verse divisions of the Hebrew Scriptures and those of Stephens' New Testament.

"Calvin, Knox and Coverdale" were present in Geneva, but credit for the translation and notes properly goes to the "others."

William Spalding, The History of English Literature (1853), p. 216:
"Coverdale, Knox, and several others, have been said to have had some share in the work; but three only can positively be named, all of whom were afterwards ministers in the Church of England. [Whittingham, Gilby, and Sampson]"

Andrew Edgar, The Bibles of England (1889), pp. 148-149:
"Coverdale was residing at Geneva at the time, and some writers have claimed for him a share of the honour. Scotsmen have, of course, put in a similar claim on behalf of John Knox. ... Whatever help, if any, was given to this noble work at Geneva by Coverdale and Knox, it seems now to be admitted that the chief credit of the work is due to Whittingham, and that his principle assistants were two Englishmen, named Thomas Sampson and Anthony Gilby."

F.F. Bruce, History of the Bible in English (2002), p. 92:
"that John Knox should prefer the version prepared by his friends and fellow-exiles at Geneva, whether or not he himself played a small part in its production."

Cambridge Companion to Reformation Theology (2004), p. 178:
"John Knox almost certainly had no part in the translation"

 

So I gather from what you're saying, is that God gave us the KJB due to two marginal notes found in the Geneva Bible?

 

Did the notes in the KJV require the approval of the monarch?

 

Whether they did or not is irrelevent. What matters is the harmony found in the marginal notes compared to the context to make agreement. That is why so many marginal notes are simply bothersome due to their lack in maintaining the context.

It's like when "vultures" is in the notes where "eagles" is the interpretation.

 

Should anyone think that criticism of the KJV is something new...

A Proposal for revision ​

“For bettering of ye Inglish translation of ye Bible (first printed A.D. 1612) by Mr. Jn Row, tis offer’d.
That these five things are to be endeavored
I. That evil and unmet divisions of chaptrs, verses, and sentences be rectify’d and made more proper, rationall, and dexterous, wch will much clear the scope.

II. That needles transpositions of words, or stories, pretending to Hypall or Synchyese, be waryly amended; or noted if they cannot.

III. That all vseless additions be lop’t off, yt debase the wisdome of ye Spirit; to instance---
1. All ye Apocryphall writings: being merely humane.
2. All popish and superstitious prints, plates, and pictures.
3. Apotheosing and canonizing of some (not othrs) as Sts., St Luke: not St Job…
4. Spirious additions, or subscriptions (to Epistles) words & Sentences.

IV. That all sinfull & needles detractions be supplly’d; and yt lies in 6 things viz.
1. Let all sentences, or words detracted, be added in ye text.
2. Epitomize yt contents, & chaptrs better at ye topps of ye leafe.
3. The parenthesis oaght no to be omitted, where ‘tis.
4. Exhaust not the Emphasis of a word, (as Idols, 13 wayes expresst).\
5. Nor ye Superlative, left only as a positive.
6. Notificatam, not noticed at all.

V. As respecting mutation, or change, 4 things are needful; namely,
1. That nothing be changed, but convinc’t apparently to be bettr:
2. Yet a change not hurting truth, piety, or ye text, may be just & needful.
3. Many evil changes are to be amended as these 9 in particular:
1. When words or sentences, are mistaken,
2. When ye margin is righter than ye lne, as in 800 places (& more) it is.
3. When particles are confounded.
4. When a word plural, is translated as singular.
5. When the active is rendered as if a passive.
6. When the genders are confounded: as mostly ye cantic: bee.
7. When Hebrismes are omitted, in silence, or amisse.
8. When participium paül is rendered as if it were Nÿphall.
9. When conjugation pyëll is Inglish’t as if Kal.

Notes on the History of the Authorized Version of the Bible in Scotland
in The Princeton Theological Review, Volume IX. Number 3, July 1911, p 415-437

Rob

 

More like when the translators offered the correct translation of "going out" in the margin instead of "gone out" in the text in Matthew 25:8. Removal of the textual notes removes the correct translation in this passage.

The translator notes were included for a reason.

 

Nothing correct about the alternate, or do you suppose the KJB translators to be that ignorant?

I believe the text is that they knew their lamps were going out, but doctrinally their lamps had gone out when they asked for the wise virgins oil. The emphasis being they then had NO light.

The KJB is perfectly in line with the parable in doctrine. If they had only a little oil they would still have had light and that would make the Lord unjust to leave them behind at the Midnight Cry in that they had that light and were rather in darkness as the parable teaches.

 

Thankfully, some of "the usual suspects" have arrived "right on cue" to "save the day!"

Ed

 

The Hampton Court Conference
[of 1603/1604]
by Laurence M. Vance
[LINK]​

 

I sure like that Dr. Rainolds!

 

Seems you're carrying on a discussion from somewhere else that some of us are not aware ?:laugh:

Toys in the attic?

 

Guilty conscience, Salamander? Isn't that something like the pot calling the kettle black? Your own comments had nothing at all to do with a discussion of the origin of the KJV. As is extremely common, you haved sought to muddy the issue with your comments before hijacking it. Apparently it is you who is "carrying on a discussion from somewhere else." Why don't you give it a rest?

 

Loox as if Dr. Vance got something right for once, but, given that he's the author of that "7-Times-Purified' hokey, he's a dubious source at best for anything about scripture.

 

I specifically addressed the introducing of the confusion principle and dealt with it with doctrinal reasoning. You have resorted to the same old bait and switch technique with the unwarranted attack upon my person.

I have not, nor will I back away from, the inducement of those who wrongly dividing the word of God and thereby attack the Bible in one breath.

I see you can only deal from the standpoint of your alter-ego and cannot deal with the verses in point. It is due to the truth being expounded upon and you pull some dust out from under your coonskin cap in an effort that is totally fruitless, as if it negates the word of God.

The "Origen of the KJB" is founded upon the truth of God's word in His intent to have it perfect and infallible, preserved in the English language and without error. The ONLY error I have ever witnessed in these discussions is the persistent vehement attacks upon the word of God in an attempt to try and express some sort of mistranslation by using corrupt MSS.:sleeping_2:

 

Jealous of his accomplishments Roby?

 

Freudian slip, heh Sal....???

Rob