In their Preface, the King James translators make a lot of revealing comments about their philosophy and intentions. I'd like to quote a couple of them and then ask a question.
The first quote speaks of the autographs. They seem to indicate that the autographs themselves were the only perfect and inspired words of God.
In the second quote they speak of making a new version that could "not be justly excepted against"; that is, one that no one could make a claim against as containing "gall of dragons instead of wine" or "whey instead of milk." The context mentions Sixtus and his claims about the previous Protestant Bibles as being faulty. Their purpose seems to have been to create a version that could overcome claims like these.
In light of this, could the translators have been saying that their intention was to make a perfect and infallible English translation; one that contained the very words of God? In the first paragraph they said that the originals were the perfect words of God. What say you?
"And what marvel? The original thereof being from heaven, not from earth; the author being God, not man;"
"Truly, good Christian reader, we never thought from the beginning that we should need to make a new translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one, (for then the imputation of [pope] Sixtus had been true in some sort, that our people had been fed with gall of dragons instead of wine, with whey instead of milk but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principal good one, not justly to be excepted against; that hath been our endeavour, that our mark."
The first quote speaks of the autographs. They seem to indicate that the autographs themselves were the only perfect and inspired words of God.
In the second quote they speak of making a new version that could "not be justly excepted against"; that is, one that no one could make a claim against as containing "gall of dragons instead of wine" or "whey instead of milk." The context mentions Sixtus and his claims about the previous Protestant Bibles as being faulty. Their purpose seems to have been to create a version that could overcome claims like these.
In light of this, could the translators have been saying that their intention was to make a perfect and infallible English translation; one that contained the very words of God? In the first paragraph they said that the originals were the perfect words of God. What say you?
- 4
- Show all