Featured King James vs the original Greek

Many KJV-only advocates do not seem to be very well-informed about the pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV is a revision.

The 1539 Great Bible, one of those former versions to the KJV, may not be overall purer in all its renderings than the 1537 Matthew’s Bible. Sometimes the next Bible in the line made some changes by adding words likely from the Latin Vulgate as in the case of the Great Bible.

In several likely additions from the Latin Vulgate including three whole verses in Psalm 14 (between verses 4 and 5), an edition of the Great Bible in 1540 has over one hundred eighty words in the book of Psalms that are not found in the KJV (check and compare Ps. 13:6, 14:1, 17:9, 18:6, 19:14, 20:9, 29:1, 33:10, 38:16, 48:4, 55:23, 65:1, 73:13, 73:28, 85:8, 92:13, 95:7, 108:1, 111:10, 115:9, 118:2, 120:7, 132:4, 134:2, 136:26, 147:8, 148:5). An edition of the Great Bible has over one hundred fifty words in the book of Proverbs that are not found in the KJV (check and compare Prov. 4:27, 6:12, 12:11, 13:13, 15:5, 15:27, 16:6, 18:22). Because of possible additions from the Latin Vulgate, an edition of the Great Bible also has over one hundred words in one New Testament book (Acts) which are not found in the KJV (check and compare Acts 4:25, 4:27, 5:15, 13:30, 14:7, 15:34c, 15:41c, 18:4, 23:24c, 24:17). These textual differences (pertinent facts), involving over 400 words, that are omitted or removed in the KJV, were found in a reprint of one of the 1540 editions of a Great Bible so they may not be in every one of the varying editions of the Great Bible. Thus, the Great Bible, the first authorized Bible in English, would likely have hundreds of more words than the 1611 KJV.

Were these significant non-majority textual differences in the Great Bible (likely most from the Latin Vulgate) changes towards more purity or changes for the worse? Was someone involved with the English Bibles on the KJV-only view’s good line adding to or subtracting from the word of God? If the Latin manuscripts have signification in determining the text of Scripture as Edward Hills and David Cloud asserted, why would these readings based on the Latin be removed or omitted in the KJV?

Do you suggest that the 1611 KJV removed or omitted over 400 inspired words found in the 1540 edition of the Great Bible?

 

Was the rendering "penance" found in the 1535 Coverdale's Bible, one of the former versions of which the KJV is a revision, at Matthew 3:8, 12:41, Luke 10:13, 11:32, 15:7, 10, 16:30, Acts 3:19 and 26:20 inspired and more purified or more accurate than Tyndale’s 1526 or 1534 New Testament?

Was the reading "their purification" at Luke 2:22 in some of the Textus Receptus editions and in the pre-1611 English Bibles translated from those TR editions inspired?

Was the reading "father" at Luke 2:33 in some of the Textus Receptus editions and in all the pre-1611 English Bibles except the 1560 Geneva inspired?

 

I believe God uses fallible men throughout history to achieve His perfect will. One of those is perfectly preserving his words as promised. Doesn’t God use people who think/know they are subject to fault to accomplish what He chooses to accomplish? His ways are not our ways.
Which I think in the preface, they of course didn’t know God had used them in perfectly preserving those words.
Better go find my armor.

 

Wonder whatever happened to his collection of historic bibles after his death in 2004?

 

The really big problem is that God must tell you what the words mean. The Pharisees got it wrong even though they knew what the words said. God blinded them but opened the understanding of the disciples.

 

I recall reading that Jewell Smith's collection of Bibles was on display at a church where a tornado hit, and that some of it was damaged as a result.

 

Do you have a specifice case example that demonstrates this to be a fact?

 

The Pharisees had the closest thing to the originals, yet Isaiah and others say God blinded them so they could not understand the scriptures. Later Jesus opened the disciples' understanding of the scriptures. Surely you are familiar with these instances? I'll look them up for you if necessary.

 

You are repeating your claim void of the case example. Jesus' teaching on the sower, Matthew 13:3-23 which, by interpertation, is about the hearts of men.

 

Isaiah 6:9-10, Ezekiel 12:2.

Jesus opening the understanding of His disciples:
Luke 24:45

But he is referencing, in a general manner, what the Scriptures say in some places...Matthew 13:10-17, Mark 4:10-12 and Luke 8:8-10:

To His disciples it was given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of Heaven...
But to others in parables.

So that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not hear,
lest at any time they should be converted and He should heal them.

Also, see John 12:37-41, Romans 11:7-8.

 

We are banding about the words from God here.
Those of us who know know. Those who do not might only think they know. Matthew 7:21-23, Revelation 20:15, 2 Corinthians 13:5.

 

You are not familiar with these passages.
“Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,” Luke 24:45 (KJV 1900)

“And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?” Luke 24:32 (KJV 1900)

“And he said, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: but to others in parables; that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand.” Luke 8:10 (KJV 1900)

“Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.” Matthew 13:13 (KJV 1900)

“Yet the LORD hath not given you an heart to perceive, and eyes to see, and ears to hear, unto this day.” Deuteronomy 29:4 (KJV 1900)

“(According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear unto this day.” Romans 11:8 (KJV 1900)

 

I agree, at least tentatively.

I think that among many "KJV-Only" advocates ( including myself ), they would say that they were changes for the worse.
In other words,
I personally hold that the KJV was a much better and further refined work than that which came before it.

Looking carefully at what the translators of the AV themselves said about it, should reinforce this.

 

A false accusation.

 

If you said or mean overall better or more accurate, I could agree.

On the other hand, there are at least some places where one or more of the pre-1611 English Bibles can be said to be better or more accurate than the 1611 KJV when compared to the preserved Scriptures in the original languages.

Sometimes the KJV kept a more archaic, less accurate rendering from the Bishops' Bible when one of the other pre-1611 English Bibles had a better or more accurate rendering.
Sometimes the KJV introduced and borrowed Latin-based renderings from the 1582 Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament where one or more of the pre-1611 English Bibles had better renderings.

 

@Salty:

I don't think that it's an unhealthy thing to go back to the Greek.
However, I also don't think that it's absolutely needed.

But, given the fact that there is no standard Bible anymore among even English speaking peoples who profess Christ ( that standard began to disappear after 1881, but it wasn't until the 1980's that it seriously began to fade ),
perhaps going back to the Greek, at least in private studies, should be encouraged....

If anything, just to see if the translators of the more modern versions are being accurate to the Greek.

That said,
There's still the matter of "which Greek?".

CT, MT, or TR.

 

I think that that's a matter of personal opinion.

Again, I think that's a matter of personal opinion.
Perhaps the more "archaic" words better suited the efforts of the translators when it came to overall accuracy.

Also, modern English is not "book English",
whether we're in England, Australia, Canada and especially the United States.

 

There is certainly alot of William Tyndale's pioneering translations in the KJV. Especially in the Gospels.

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.
The Translators to the Reader

 

I agree, and it's been said that some 84 percent of the New Testament contained in the AV was based on William Tyndale's work.

I've read it, but thanks for the link.

I still hold that making a single better translation, in English, is not what the majority of what's being done these days is actually the focus of.
To me, it's more about taking advantage of people who think that they don't have a Bible that's "good enough".

I maintain that we do...even if many think that it's "archaic".

 

1. The ordinary Bible read in the Church, commonly called the Bishops' Bible, to be followed, and as little altered as the original will permit.

14. These translations to be used, when they agree better with the text than the Bishops' Bible: Tyndale's, Coverdale's, Matthew's [Rogers'], Whitchurch's [Cranmer's], Geneva."

History of the King James Version