Preface to the 1611 KJV—KJV translators KJVO?

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
ResidentAlien

ResidentAlien

Well-known member
#1
Apr 21, 2021
7,594
3,179
113
#1
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.

"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?
 
GRACE_ambassador

GRACE_ambassador

Well-known member
#2
Feb 22, 2021
2,978
1,402
113
Midwest
#2
ResidentAlien

ResidentAlien

Well-known member
#3
Apr 21, 2021
7,594
3,179
113
#3
GRACE_ambassador said:
I believe God "Preserved His Pure Words" for me, in my own language,
so that I could know "His Word Of Truth" for me, and trust in Him.
Click to expand...
Okay. What's your view of the quotes I posted and my question? That's the topic.
 
Nehemiah6

Nehemiah6

Senior Member
#4
Jul 18, 2017
24,524
12,966
113
#4
ResidentAlien said:
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?
Click to expand...
What they were saying is that they wished to make an exceptional translation to which no one could take exception. And they fulfilled their objective. The King James Bible has been exceptional for over 400 years.
 
Dino246

Dino246

Senior Member
#5
Jun 30, 2015
24,748
13,408
113
#5
They made a decent translation, which though certainly (and proveably) not "perfect", was adequate for the time. Now that we have access to thousands more manuscripts, it makes sense to use all available evidence and wisdom to determine not only which is the best English to render the original language, but also the most likely underlying words.

To the questions in the OP:

"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? "

No, their intent was clearly not to make a perfect and infallible English translation, but only to make one better than what was then available. Whether they succeeded in that goal is purely a matter of opinion.
 
ResidentAlien

ResidentAlien

Well-known member
#6
Apr 21, 2021
7,594
3,179
113
#6
Nehemiah6 said:
What they were saying is that they wished to make an exceptional translation to which no one could take exception. And they fulfilled their objective. The King James Bible has been exceptional for over 400 years.
Click to expand...
The one thing that's absent is the claim of making an infallible Bible. Where's that?
 
ResidentAlien

ResidentAlien

Well-known member
#7
Apr 21, 2021
7,594
3,179
113
#7
From the KJV Preface:

"Now to the later we answer: that we do not deny, nay we affirm and avow, that the very meanest [most humble] translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession (for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) contains the word of God, nay, is the word of God."​
​
I have no doubt the KJV translators would say their translation is the word of God, but not the only word of God. They used many of the previous versions for comparison in making the KJV. These are the "mean" or humble attempts they speak of, and apparently considered them the word of God, incomplete though they were.

However, I do think they might say something quite different about all the paraphrases and dynamic equivalency versions around today.
 
P

persistent

Guest
#8
#8
ResidentAlien said:
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.

"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?
Click to expand...
Seems that some if not all of the translators statements are suspect in that they apparently find it necessary to argue against a pope identified here as Sixtus. What does an argument with whichever Sixtus, and there are several, this is have to do with the inerrancy of the translators work. My opinion is that while the translators may have attempted to present themselves as above reproach it was primarily the reproach of worldly dignitaries and not God.
 
J

John146

Senior Member
#9
Jan 13, 2016
16,666
3,541
113
#9
ResidentAlien said:
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.

"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?
Click to expand...
They didn't have access to the originals. Nobody has access to the originals. Let's never place more emphasis on the originals than God. Inspiration without preservation is meaningless.
 
P

persistent

Guest
#10
#10
John146 said:
They didn't have access to the originals. Nobody has access to the originals. Let's never place more emphasis on the originals than God. Inspiration without preservation is meaningless.
Click to expand...
This seems like a matter to be considered but the translators state 'original' not 'originals'. They may be referring to the 'Bishops' Bible or some translation they already had. I ran across some discussion regarding the translators work on the AV and there was mentioned how they also referred to the work of Kimchi. So apparently they brought in extraneous 'works' in pursuit of the AV. How does that play into the 1611 version of the AV?
 
ResidentAlien

ResidentAlien

Well-known member
#11
Apr 21, 2021
7,594
3,179
113
#11
John146 said:
They didn't have access to the originals. Nobody has access to the originals. Let's never place more emphasis on the originals than God.
Click to expand...
Tell that to the KJV translators. They're the ones who wrote that they believed the originals to be the very words of God. They're the ones who emphasized it.

John146 said:
Inspiration without preservation is meaningless.
Click to expand...
I agree, but if by "preserve" you mean the KJV and only the KJV then all I can say is give something tangible and perhaps I'll agree.
 
D

Dirtman

Well-known member
#12
Jul 19, 2022
1,151
441
83
#12
KJV onlyism is a very clever form of idolatry. A way of elevating the self. As in the self held approval that the self is right above all others; including the producers of the work that is the object of their confirmation bias.
It is not about the word of God. It is about the book being the evidence of the idea that they are right and Holy Above all others; including those who brought the book and even more so concerning those who brought the teachings of the faith to the producers of the book. Because those ancestors never had the book in that form. Therefore never had the book and could not have been in the faith.
 
ResidentAlien

ResidentAlien

Well-known member
#13
Apr 21, 2021
7,594
3,179
113
#13
Dirtman said:
KJV onlyism is a very clever form of idolatry. A way of elevating the self. As in the self held approval that the self is right above all others; including the producers of the work that is the object of their confirmation bias.
It is not about the word of God. It is about the book being the evidence of the idea that they are right and Holy Above all others; including those who brought the book and even more so concerning those who brought the teachings of the faith to the producers of the book. Because those ancestors never had the book in that form. Therefore never had the book and could not have been in the faith.
Click to expand...
Yes, I see what you mean.

To me KJVO seems like a private club that only grants admission to those with the special ability to "see." There certainly aren't any observable facts on which to base KJVO. Membership in the club makes a person feel special, like they belong.

Even the KJV translators (I almost hate calling them that. They really were editors of the Bishop's Bible) considered those partial Bibles that came before them God's preserved word. But I guess KJVO know better than them and the translators who preceded them.

The KJV has good points. We should follow the example of the KJV team and build upon their work as they built upon the work of previos generations, not idolize a book.
 
Nehemiah6

Nehemiah6

Senior Member
#14
Jul 18, 2017
24,524
12,966
113
#14
ResidentAlien said:
There certainly aren't any observable facts on which to base KJVO.
Click to expand...
The observable facts are for those who wish to observe them. They can be rather inconvenient for others.

So kindly begin by investing in The Revision Revised by Dean John William Burgon (from Amazon). He was an outstanding and outspoken textual scholar who wrote numerous books after a lifetime of textual research. He was also highly regarded by F.H. A. Scrivener, perhaps the leading textual scholar of the 19th century (who wrote the text book on textual criticism).

 
D

Dirtman

Well-known member
#15
Jul 19, 2022
1,151
441
83
#15
ResidentAlien said:
Yes, I see what you mean.

To me KJVO seems like a private club that only grants admission to those with the special ability to "see." There certainly aren't any observable facts on which to base KJVO. Membership in the club makes a person feel special, like they belong.

Even the KJV translators (I almost hate calling them that. They really were editors of the Bishop's Bible) considered those partial Bibles that came before them God's preserved word. But I guess KJVO know better than them and the translators who preceded them.

The KJV has good points. We should follow the example of the KJV team and build upon their work as they built upon the work of previos generations, not idolize a book.
Click to expand...
My favorite translation is the New KJV. I think is the most accurate and readable English translation, but that is only this mans opinion.
 
ResidentAlien

ResidentAlien

Well-known member
#16
Apr 21, 2021
7,594
3,179
113
#16
Dirtman said:
My favorite translation is the New KJV. I think is the most accurate and readable English translation, but that is only this mans opinion.
Click to expand...
I agree. Of everything that's out there I think the NKJV is the best progression from the KJV. I read the New Testament from it but default to the ESV for the Old Testament. But I don' rely on the ESV entirely; if I have a question I check the NKJV and KJV or the Hebrew. I will even check the NLT if something is completely unintelligible; but again, I only use it for a reference, I don't rely on it.
 
ResidentAlien

ResidentAlien

Well-known member
#17
Apr 21, 2021
7,594
3,179
113
#17
Nehemiah6 said:
The observable facts are for those who wish to observe them. They can be rather inconvenient for others.

So kindly begin by investing in The Revision Revised by Dean John William Burgon (from Amazon). He was an outstanding and outspoken textual scholar who wrote numerous books after a lifetime of textual research. He was also highly regarded by F.H. A. Scrivener, perhaps the leading textual scholar of the 19th century (who wrote the text book on textual criticism).

Click to expand...
Knowing Burgon, this sounds like a hit piece on the critical text, not evidence for the infallibility of the KJV. The critical text needs to be hit, but that's not the real issue. The issue is whether God's word is preserved in the KJV and only the KJV. I've found no evidence to suggest the KJV team thought they were creating the final Bible.

Your "observable facts" are really nothing more than a book full of circumstantial evidence. If you had anything definitive you'd be beside yourself to get it out there. And it wouldn't take a whole book.
 
M

montana123

Well-known member
#18
Oct 9, 2021
749
252
63
#18
Concerning KJVO don't the denominations do the same liking the attitude out of all the denominations we have the truth we are number 1.

Like people that like the Republican and Democrat parties so they can choose a side and say my side is truth and better.

I think a lot of people that claim Christianity like that there are different denominations so they can fight and say I have the truth and better

This website is a good example for many people argue with other people and get sarcastic and belittling of those who oppose them.

I wonder why they don't stop posting but keep going back and forth with those people that are being sarcastic and belittling them.
 
oyster67

oyster67

Senior Member
#19
May 24, 2014
11,887
8,699
113
#19
ResidentAlien said:
"And what marvel? The original thereof being from heaven, not from earth; the author being God, not man;"
Click to expand...
Amen! God is the Author and Finisher of His Written Word as well as our Faith.
 
J

John146

Senior Member
#20
Jan 13, 2016
16,666
3,541
113
#20
ResidentAlien said:
I agree. Of everything that's out there I think the NKJV is the best progression from the KJV. I read the New Testament from it but default to the ESV for the Old Testament. But I don' rely on the ESV entirely; if I have a question I check the NKJV and KJV or the Hebrew. I will even check the NLT if something is completely unintelligible; but again, I only use it for a reference, I don't rely on it.
Click to expand...
You do understand this is placing you as the final decision maker...personally, I don't want such responsibility.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.