KJV Translators to the Readers

  • 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.

IsaiahA

Active member
Jan 24, 2023
114
68
28
#1
Most KJV Bibles today do not include the 19 page Translators to the Readers Preface to explain the translation to the readers. Below are some points from that section are important to remember, especially if you lean to the "KJV only" idea.

"Zeal to promote the common good, whether it be by devising anything ourselves, or revising that which hath been laboured by others, deserveth certainly much respect and esteem, but yet findeth but cold entertainment in the world. It is welcomed with suspicion instead of love, and with emulation instead of thanks: and if there be any hole left for cavil to enter, (and cavil, if it do not find a hole, will make one) it is sure to be misconstrued, and in danger to be condemned."

"Therefore as one complaineth, that always in the Senate of Rome, there was one or other that called for an interpreter: so lest the Church be driven to the like exigent, it is necessary to have translations in a readiness."

"...it pleased the Lord to stir up the spirit of a Greek Prince (Greek for descent and language) even of Ptolemy Philadelph King of Egypt, to procure the translating of the Book of God out of Hebrew into Greek. This is the translation of the Seventy Interpreters, commonly so called, which prepared the way for our Saviour among the Gentiles by written preaching, as Saint John Baptist did among the Jews by vocal."

About the LXX:
"It is certain, that that Translation was not so sound and so perfect, but it needed in many places correction; and who had been so sufficient for this work as the Apostles or Apostolic men? Yet it seemed good to the holy Ghost and to them, to take that which they found, (the same being for the greatest part true and sufficient) rather than making a new, in that new world and green age of the Church, to expose themselves to many exceptions and cavillations, as though they made a Translations to serve their own turn, and therefore bearing a witness to themselves, their witness not to be regarded. This may be supposed to be some cause, why the Translation of the Seventy was allowed to pass for current. Notwithstanding, though it was commended generally, yet it did not fully content the learned, no not of the Jews. For not long after Christ, Aquila fell in hand with a new Translation, and after him Theodotion, and after him Symmachus; yea, there was a fifth and a sixth edition, the Authors whereof were not known."

"St. Chrysostom,...The doctrine of S. John [saith he] did not in such sort [as the Philosophers' did] vanish away: but the Syrians, Egyptians, Indians, Persians, Ethiopians, and infinite other nations being barbarous people translated it into their [mother] tongue, and have learned to be [true] Philosophers," he meaneth Christians."

About earlier translations:
"And to the same effect say we, that we are so far off from condemning any of their labors that travailed before us in this kind, either in this land or beyond sea, either in King Henry's time, or King Edward's (if there were any translation, or correction of a translation in his time) or Queen Elizabeth's of ever renowned memory, that we acknowledge them to have been raised up of God, for the building and furnishing of his Church, and that they deserve to be had of us and of posterity in everlasting remembrance."

"Yet for all that, as nothing is begun and perfected at the same time, and the later thoughts are thought to be the wiser: so, if we building upon their foundation that went before us, and being holpen by their labours, do endeavor to make that better which they left so good; no man, we are sure, hath cause to mislike us; they, we persuade ourselves, if they were alive, would thank us."

"Now to the latter we answer; that we do not deny, nay we affirm and avow, that the very meanest 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) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God. As the King's speech, which he uttereth in Parliament, being translated into French, Dutch, Italian, and Latin, is still the King's speech, though it be not interpreted by every Translator with the like grace, nor peradventure so fitly for phrase, nor so expressly for sense, everywhere."

"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 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 endeavor, that our mark."

"Now in such a case, doth not a margin do well to admonish the Reader to seek further, and not to conclude or dogmatize upon this or that peremptorily? For as it is a fault of incredulity, to doubt of those things that are evident: so to determine of such things as the Spirit of God hath left (even in the judgment of the judicious) questionable, can be no less than presumption."

"Therefore as S. Augustine saith, that variety of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures: so diversity of signification and sense in the margin, where the text is no so clear, must needs do good, yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded."

"we have not tied ourselves to an uniformity of phrasing, or to an identity of words, as some peradventure would wish that we had done, because they observe,"

"Add hereunto, that niceness in words was always counted the next step to trifling, and so was to be curious about names too: also that we cannot follow a better pattern for elocution than God himself; therefore he using divers words, in his holy writ, and indifferently for one thing in nature we, if we will not be superstitious, may use the same liberty in our English versions out of Hebrew and Greek, for that copy or store that he hath given us. Lastly, we have on the one side avoided the scrupulosity of the Puritans, who leave the old Ecclesiastical words, and betake them to other, as when they put WASHING for BAPTISM, and CONGREGATION instead of CHURCH:"

"...when God speaketh unto us, to hearken; when he setteth his word before us, to read it; when he stretcheth out his hand and calleth, to answer, Here am I, here we are to do thy will, O God."
 

fredoheaven

Senior Member
Nov 17, 2015
4,114
965
113
#2
Most Kjv only i know do not defend the preface since they were not scriptures. God bless
 

IsaiahA

Active member
Jan 24, 2023
114
68
28
#3
Most Kjv only i know do not defend the preface since they were not scriptures. God bless
Most of the KJV only people I know are not even aware the full Translators to the Readers Preface exists because few KJV Bibles today include it. True, it is not Holy Spirit inspired scripture, but it shows the modest mindset of the KJV translators. In no way would they say their translation was the final word, the only true word of God. I love the KJV and in some verses I think they are more true and accurate than most modern translations. But I check and compare all versions, except the NWT. I meant to give the link that gives this message to the readers from the translators. You can read it in full here:

https://www.thekingsbible.com/Library/Preface

What I consider my best KJV Bibles are by Cambridge. Cambridge even offers the old KJV with the Apocrypha as the old Bibles used to be.
 

Joelightening

Active member
Feb 27, 2023
107
93
28
#4
Most of the KJV only people I know are not even aware the full Translators to the Readers Preface exists because few KJV Bibles today include it. True, it is not Holy Spirit inspired scripture, but it shows the modest mindset of the KJV translators. In no way would they say their translation was the final word, the only true word of God. I love the KJV and in some verses I think they are more true and accurate than most modern translations. But I check and compare all versions, except the NWT. I meant to give the link that gives this message to the readers from the translators. You can read it in full here:

https://www.thekingsbible.com/Library/Preface

What I consider my best KJV Bibles are by Cambridge. Cambridge even offers the old KJV with the Apocrypha as the old Bibles used to be.
I grew up with the KJV. I switched to the NKJV because the KJV contained so many archaic words and was more difficult to read. Eventually the ESV became my go to source for Bible reading, but I still compare it to other translations at times.
 

fredoheaven

Senior Member
Nov 17, 2015
4,114
965
113
#5
Most of the KJV only people I know are not even aware the full Translators to the Readers Preface exists because few KJV Bibles today include it. True, it is not Holy Spirit inspired scripture, but it shows the modest mindset of the KJV translators. In no way would they say their translation was the final word, the only true word of God. I love the KJV and in some verses I think they are more true and accurate than most modern translations. But I check and compare all versions, except the NWT. I meant to give the link that gives this message to the readers from the translators. You can read it in full here:

https://www.thekingsbible.com/Library/Preface

What I consider my best KJV Bibles are by Cambridge. Cambridge even offers the old KJV with the Apocrypha as the old Bibles used to be.
That might be true, yet still it has no bearing ti the scripture as a whole and what we are to study is the scripture itself. Thanks
 

ButterflyJones

Active member
Feb 5, 2023
698
230
43
#6
Most Kjv only i know do not defend the preface since they were not scriptures. God bless
It's unfortunate that you didn't read the whole the OP had to offer. You missed out on learning a great deal.
 

ButterflyJones

Active member
Feb 5, 2023
698
230
43
#7
That might be true, yet still it has no bearing ti the scripture as a whole and what we are to study is the scripture itself. Thanks
You're wrong.
Yes, it is very unfortunate. You missed learning quite a lot.
 

ButterflyJones

Active member
Feb 5, 2023
698
230
43
#8
Most of the KJV only people I know are not even aware the full Translators to the Readers Preface exists because few KJV Bibles today include it. True, it is not Holy Spirit inspired scripture, but it shows the modest mindset of the KJV translators. In no way would they say their translation was the final word, the only true word of God. I love the KJV and in some verses I think they are more true and accurate than most modern translations. But I check and compare all versions, except the NWT. I meant to give the link that gives this message to the readers from the translators. You can read it in full here:

https://www.thekingsbible.com/Library/Preface

What I consider my best KJV Bibles are by Cambridge. Cambridge even offers the old KJV with the Apocrypha as the old Bibles used to be.
I like the 1611 KJV because it included the Apocrypha.
 

fredoheaven

Senior Member
Nov 17, 2015
4,114
965
113
#10
I like the 1611 KJV because it included the Apocrypha.
Apocrypha were place between the old and New Testament and the title page of the Kjv do not mentioned as part of the scripture,. So that they were no longer in todays copy of the Kjv.
 

IsaiahA

Active member
Jan 24, 2023
114
68
28
#11
I like the 1611 KJV because it included the Apocrypha.
Amazon has the KJV with the apocrypha and it is a beautiful and well made Cambridge Bible. You can find it on Amazon by searching:

KJV Cameo Reference Bible with Apocrypha, Black Calfskin Leather, Red-Letter Text, KJ455:XRA
(Does not have The Translators to the Reader)

In 2011 Cambridge put out another KJV that has The Translators to the Reader included and it is fine Bible also, search for:

KJV Clarion Reference Edition First Published 2011, kj485:x - b1050
(Published in 2011 for the 400th anniversary of the KJV, and has The Translators to the Reader, but not the apocrypha)

Both of these are of course Pure Cambridge Editions, by which I mean as described in this link:
https://kjvpce.com/pce
 

IsaiahA

Active member
Jan 24, 2023
114
68
28
#12
Apocrypha were place between the old and New Testament and the title page of the Kjv do not mentioned as part of the scripture,. So that they were no longer in todays copy of the Kjv.
Fred, I did not mean to bicker with the OP, but it took me years before I learned about some of these things and wished to share it. There is something about the apocrypha I believe you will appreciate. The e-sword has the KJV with apocrypha available for free download. The apocrypha can give us a bit of the thinking from the Jews back in biblical times. True, it is not inspired, but interesting as historical reference. I'll give an example concerning the first verse in the Bible:

"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." (Gen 1:1 KJVA)

From the apocrypha:

"I beseech thee, my son, look upon the heaven and the earth, and all that is therein, and consider that God made them of things that were not; and so was mankind made likewise." (2Macc. 7:28 KJVA)

This is an example of where the liberal Oxford Study Bible was a help as that is where I found the cross reference to the apocrypha.
 

Nehemiah6

Senior Member
Jul 18, 2017
26,074
13,778
113
#13
In no way would they say their translation was the final word, the only true word of God.
Well they did not put it quite that way, but they did state that their primary objective was to make a translation (out of many existing ones) which would be outstanding: "...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 endeavor, that our mark." And that is certainly true. It became the Authorized Version, Appointed to be read in Churches". They were not facing a whole bunch of corrupt translations at that time either. There could have been further improvements made in the 19th century, but the project was hijacked by Westcott and Hort.
 

IsaiahA

Active member
Jan 24, 2023
114
68
28
#14
Well they did not put it quite that way, but they did state that their primary objective was to make a translation (out of many existing ones) which would be outstanding: "...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 endeavor, that our mark." And that is certainly true. It became the Authorized Version, Appointed to be read in Churches". They were not facing a whole bunch of corrupt translations at that time either. There could have been further improvements made in the 19th century, but the project was hijacked by Westcott and Hort.
I do not seek credible scholarship on such matters as figuring out the original Greek text in online forums. I prefer to seek true scholarship. There is an excellent article about this matter one can read by an educated man:

http://www.bible-researcher.com/kutilek1.html
 

ResidentAlien

Well-known member
Apr 21, 2021
8,432
3,682
113
#15
The KJV was authorized, as were the two "authorized versions" that preceded it. Being authorized is fairly meaningless in the log run. Today the Church of England recognizes several other versions. For example: Revised Version (1881), Jerusalem Bible (1996), Good News Bible (1976) and the New American Bible (1970). The Jerusalem Bible is used by Roman Catholics and the Revised Version is reviled by KJVO.
 

fredoheaven

Senior Member
Nov 17, 2015
4,114
965
113
#16
Fred, I did not mean to bicker with the OP, but it took me years before I learned about some of these things and wished to share it. There is something about the apocrypha I believe you will appreciate. The e-sword has the KJV with apocrypha available for free download. The apocrypha can give us a bit of the thinking from the Jews back in biblical times. True, it is not inspired, but interesting as historical reference. I'll give an example concerning the first verse in the Bible:

"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." (Gen 1:1 KJVA)

From the apocrypha:

"I beseech thee, my son, look upon the heaven and the earth, and all that is therein, and consider that God made them of things that were not; and so was mankind made likewise." (2Macc. 7:28 KJVA)

This is an example of where the liberal Oxford Study Bible was a help as that is where I found the cross reference to the apocrypha.
Hi IsaiahA,

I think there's no need for the Apocrypha as a way of helping to understand Genesis 1:1. Your example may come from the "liberal Oxford Study Bible" which I owned given to me. using R. Kitel's Biblia Hebraica is quite doubtful. The original 1611 never came out to reference it and that is a fact. The Oxford Study Bible is never intended for the KJV but rather to the revised version and what I owned is the New English Bible. So this is quite misleading referencing the KJVA then sourcing out other English versions to prove the necessity of Apocypha. Genesis-Chapter-1-1.jpg
 

IsaiahA

Active member
Jan 24, 2023
114
68
28
#17
:) Where friend, did I show a need for "sourcing out other English versions to prove the necessity of Apocypha." I merely showed that the people of God in BC times believed creation out of nothing as we believers do today, in opposition to modern 'theistic evolution' theories. I was giving a historical reference.
 

fredoheaven

Senior Member
Nov 17, 2015
4,114
965
113
#18
:) Where friend, did I show a need for "sourcing out other English versions to prove the necessity of Apocypha." I merely showed that the people of God in BC times believed creation out of nothing as we believers do today, in opposition to modern 'theistic evolution' theories. I was giving a historical reference.
Okay but you will got a problem of this citation, since we know it, creation was made out of nothing for the heaven and the earth but not with mankind as the Apocrypha says. We are of course created out of the dust in the image of God. Kjvo stands only for the Old and New Testament without it. God bless
 

ButterflyJones

Active member
Feb 5, 2023
698
230
43
#19
Apocrypha were place between the old and New Testament and the title page of the Kjv do not mentioned as part of the scripture,. So that they were no longer in todays copy of the Kjv.
I'm aware, thank you. :)
 

ButterflyJones

Active member
Feb 5, 2023
698
230
43
#20
Amazon has the KJV with the apocrypha and it is a beautiful and well made Cambridge Bible. You can find it on Amazon by searching:

KJV Cameo Reference Bible with Apocrypha, Black Calfskin Leather, Red-Letter Text, KJ455:XRA
(Does not have The Translators to the Reader)

In 2011 Cambridge put out another KJV that has The Translators to the Reader included and it is fine Bible also, search for:

KJV Clarion Reference Edition First Published 2011, kj485:x - b1050
(Published in 2011 for the 400th anniversary of the KJV, and has The Translators to the Reader, but not the apocrypha)

Both of these are of course Pure Cambridge Editions, by which I mean as described in this link:
https://kjvpce.com/pce
I want it all.;)
The KJV, Translators to the reader with Apocrypha. Without animal skin if possible.

Why do you prefer Cambridge edition?