Is the King James Bible perfect?

[kevinmiller]

That's why the King James uses italics - words that were added to make the translation readable in english.

Hmm...I don't have italics. At least not in the Bible I have in my hands at the moment. Then do you believe that the italic words are not the preserved Words of God while those in standard type are?

[Guest Guest]

Hmm...I don't have italics. At least not in the Bible I have in my hands at the moment. Then do you believe that the italic words are not the preserved Words of God while those in standard type are?

I believe the words in italics are just as important as the words that aren't. They are all the inspired, preserved words of God. The words in italics had to be added in order for the translation to be consistent with the manuscripts it was translated from. The translators had to be extremely careful in adding the italicized words (we all know God's warning about adding to the Bible), but they were necessary.

If you compare the KJV to the TR, it won't be an exact word-for-word translation, but that's because it's a translation from one language to the other. Where the KJV differs from a copy of the TR we may have today, the KJV is correct because it was translated from all the correct manuscripts. The copies of the TR we have today aren't perfect. In fact, the KJV corrects the copies of the TR we have today.. (I didn't say it corrects the original manuscripts, those are no longer in existence)

[bibletotingunslinger]

Yes, my answer is YES. :coffee

[Guest Guest]

Yes, my answer is YES. :coffee

Amen! :thumb :thumb

[kevinmiller]

Why do you say that the KJV corrects the Greek? And do you believe that the translators of TR-based foreign versions were also inspired, or just the KJV translators?

[Guest Guest]

Why do you say that the KJV corrects the Greek? And do you believe that the translators of TR-based foreign versions were also inspired, or just the KJV translators?

The KJV corrects copies of the Greek we have today. I know from studying the history of the KJV that the KJV is perfectly translated from the manuscripts it came from. Any copy of the Greek we have today must bow to the authority of the KJV. We do not have a pure copy of the Bible in Greek today.

You have to look at each foreign translation individually and check the history and see if God's hand was in it or not. I believe there are a few foreign translations that were inspired of God. I've heard a few stories about these Bibles but never studied the history. I know there is a translation of the Bible in Spanish that is believed to be inspired, and has history to back it up. There is another Bible (I think it's in Hungary) that was discovered by some missionaries there a long time ago, and it's the equivalent to the KJV in that language. At the time it was discovered, the Bible of that nation was an equivalent to something like the NIV, and once the older Bible was found, the missionary worked hard to make copies of it for the people (even though it was in the more "archaic" form of the language, sound familiar? hehe), and even though many other missionaries opposed that Bible, the missionary that reproduced it got it to the people anyway, and now it's the Bible most people use over there. Dr. Gipp told us about that one. :thumb

So yeah, I definitely believe God had a hand in the translation of Bibles into other languages. I can't say all languages have an inspired translation of the Bible, because not all of them do.

[kevinmiller]

The KJV corrects copies of the Greek we have today. I know from studying the history of the KJV that the KJV is perfectly translated from the manuscripts it came from. Any copy of the Greek we have today must bow to the authority of the KJV. We do not have a pure copy of the Bible in Greek today.

But the fact remains that the authority of the KJV derives directly from the fact that it is a faithful translation of the Greek and Hebrew, whether they exist or not.

You have to look at each foreign translation individually and check the history and see if God's hand was in it or not. I believe there are a few foreign translations that were inspired of God. I've heard a few stories about these Bibles but never studied the history. I know there is a translation of the Bible in Spanish that is believed to be inspired, and has history to back it up. There is another Bible (I think it's in Hungary) that was discovered by some missionaries there a long time ago, and it's the equivalent to the KJV in that language. At the time it was discovered, the Bible of that nation was an equivalent to something like the NIV, and once the older Bible was found, the missionary worked hard to make copies of it for the people (even though it was in the more "archaic" form of the language, sound familiar? hehe), and even though many other missionaries opposed that Bible, the missionary that reproduced it got it to the people anyway, and now it's the Bible most people use over there.

But how can we look at something and take circumstantial evidence and say "yeah, that looks like it must have had God's hand on it?" There is nothing to back up that assumption and whether a Bible was inspired or not would be left to the subjective view of individuals who may see "God's hand" differently.

[dwayner79]

The KJV corrects copies of the Greek we have today. I know from studying the history of the KJV that the KJV is perfectly translated from the manuscripts it came from. Any copy of the Greek we have today must bow to the authority of the KJV. We do not have a pure copy of the Bible in Greek today.

Clarification question: The greek text used in 1611 was perfect? The translation from that was perfect?

[dwayner79]

Neither did we think much to consult the Translators or Commentators, Chaldee, Hebrew, Syrian, Greek or Latin, no nor the Spanish, French, Italian, or Dutch; neither did we disdain to revise that which we had done, and to bring back to the anvil that which we had hammered: but having and using as great helps as were needful, and fearing no reproach for slowness, nor coveting praise for expedition, we have at length, through the good hand of the Lord upon us, brought the work to that pass that you see.
REASONS MOVING US TO SET DIVERSITY OF SENSES IN THE MARGIN, WHERE THERE IS GREAT PROBABILITY FOR EACH

Some peradventure would have no variety of senses to be set in the margin, lest the authority of the Scriptures for deciding of controver- sies by that show of uncertainty, should somewhat be shaken. But we hold their judgment not to be sound in this point. For though, "what- soever things are necessary are manifest," as S. Chrysostom saith, [s. Chrysost. in II. Thess. cap. 2.] and as S. Augustine, "In those things that are plainly set down in the Scriptures, all such matters are found that concern Faith, Hope, and Charity." [s. Aug. 2. de doctr. Christ. cap. 9.] Yet for all that it cannot be dissembled, that partly to exercise and whet our wits, partly to wean the curious from the loathing of them for their every-where plainness, partly also to stir up our devotion to crave the assistance of God's spirit by prayer, and lastly, that we might be forward to seek aid of our brethren by con- ference, and never scorn those that be not in all respects so complete as they should be, being to seek in many things ourselves, it hath pleased God in his divine providence, here and there to scatter words and sentences of that difficulty and doubtfulness, not in doctrinal points that concern salvation, (for in such it hath been vouched that the Scriptures are plain) but in matters of less moment, that fearful- ness would better beseem us than confidence, and if we will resolve upon modesty with S. Augustine, (though not in this same case alto- gether, yet upon the same ground) Melius est debitare de occultis, quam litigare de incertis, [s. Aug li. S. de Genes. ad liter. cap. 5.] "it is better to make doubt of those things which are secret, than to strive about those things that are uncertain." There be many words in the Scriptures, which be never found there but once, (having neither brother or neighbor, as the Hebrews speak) so that we cannot be holpen by conference of places. Again, there be many rare names of certain birds, beasts and precious stones, etc. concerning the Hebrews themselves are so divided among themselves for judgment, that they may seem to have defined this or that, rather because they would say something, than because they were sure of that which they said, as S. Jerome somewhere saith of the Septuagint. 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 peremp- torily? 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: [s. Aug. 2. de doctr. Christian. cap. 14.] 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 know that Sixtus Quintus expressly forbiddeth, that any variety of readings of their vulgar edition, should be put in the margin, [sixtus 5. praef. Bibliae.] (which though it be not altogether the same thing to that we have in hand, yet it looketh that way) but we think he hath not all of his own side his favorers, for this conceit. They that are wise, had rather have their judgments at liberty in differ- ences of readings, than to be captivated to one, when it may be the other. If they were sure that their high Priest had all laws shut up in his breast, as Paul the Second bragged, [Plat. in Paulo secundo.] and that he were as free from error by special privilege, as the Dictators of Rome were made by law inviolable, it were an- other matter; then his word were an Oracle, his opinion a decision. But the eyes of the world are now open, God be thanked, and have been a great while, they find that he is subject to the same affec- tions and infirmities that others be, that his skin is penetrable, and therefore so much as he proveth, not as much as he claimeth, they grant and embrace.

[Jerry]

? Dwayner, what are you getting at? That the KJV translators acknowledged there were difficult passages to translate?...? Not sure of your point. If you are referring to some marginal renderings - that certainly doesn't compare to the differences between the KJV and the MVs.

[dwayner79]

The KJV corrects copies of the Greek we have today. I know from studying the history of the KJV that the KJV is perfectly translated from the manuscripts it came from. Any copy of the Greek we have today must bow to the authority of the KJV. We do not have a pure copy of the Bible in Greek today.

My point is that the claim made by this poster is not even held to by the translators themselves.

We are not talking about MVs, we are talking about whether the greek we have should... "bow to the KJV"???

[Jerry]

I don't think that we should run back to Greek manuscripts 400 years later to "correct" the work of the KJV translators. From what I have read recently, some of the manuscripts used have since been destroyed, and many that have since been found (or "re-discovered" because they weren't used by the translators and their forerunners because they were rejected) are Critical Texts that contain corruptions. So correcting the KJV based on what we have now is a dangerous trap to fall into. I believe studying the Greek and Hebrew to better understand the English of my KJV is useful - going to those manuscripts to correct the Bible or to give contrary renderings is wrong.

[dwayner79]

I don't think that we should run back to Greek manuscripts 400 years later to "correct" the work of the KJV translators. From what I have read recently, some of the manuscripts used have since been destroyed, and many that have since been found (or "re-discovered" because they weren't used by the translators and their forerunners because they were rejected) are Critical Texts that contain corruptions. So correcting the KJV based on what we have now is a dangerous trap to fall into. I believe studying the Greek and Hebrew to better understand the English of my KJV is useful - going to those manuscripts to correct the Bible or to give contrary renderings is wrong.

Hmmm... we run into a problem on this one:

Taking this to its logical end means that all new translations should be translated from English. Would you agree that this is the logical end? Are you willing to take that stand?

[Jerry]

Dwayner, not sure what tangent you went off on. I was referring to studying the KJV, and you start talking about other translations.

For the record, I do believe translations should be made from the preserved Hebrew and Greek texts - but I do believe the "edition" of those texts that have most had God's blessing on them is the KJV. Therefore, if I was involved in any translating, I would make sure I used the texts and readings (in Greek and Hebrew) that conformed to the KJV.

[dwayner79]

I am seriously not trying to be a punk about this one, but as best I understand the poster I was responding to, she said (and in turn you said) essentially:

The greek that was used is no longer available because parts were destroyed or something. The KJV is perfect.

The logical conclusion in my mind then is that you could use the KJV to translate into other languages.

Its a none issue... I am not really trying to prove anything here, just stimulating thought... or trying to anyway.