[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
Religion See other Religion Articles Title: I Love the King James Bible I have mentioned this before. I will now explain why I do not use the King James Bible, usually. It is really quite simple. History of English Versions by Benjamin Wilson The first English version of the New Testament was that made by John Wiclif, or Wycliffe, about the year 1367. It was translated from the Latin Bible, verbatim, without any regard to the idiom of the languages. Though this version was first in point of time, no part of it was printed before the year 1731. Tyndale's translation was published in 1526, either at Antwerp or Hamburg. It is commonly said that Tyndale translated from the Greek, but he never published it to be so on any title page of his Testament. One edition, not published by him, has this title -- "The Newe Testament, dylygently corrected and compared with the Greke, by Willyam Tyndale, and fynesshed in the yere of oure Lorde God, A. M. D. and xxxiiij. in the moneth of Nouember." It is evident he only translated from the Latin Vulgate. Coverdale published the whole Bible in English. in the year 1535. He "followed his interpreters," and adopted Tyndale's version with the exception of a few alterations. MATTHEW'S BIBLE was only Tyndale and Coverdale's published under the feigned name of Thomas Matthew. HOLLYBUSHE'S NEW TESTAMENT was printed in 1538, "both in Latin and English, after the Vulgate text," to which Coverdale prefixed a dedication to Henry VIII. THE GREAT BIBLE, published in 1539, purported to be "translated after the veryte of the Hebrue and Greke textes," but it is certain that it was only a revision of Matthew's, with a few small alterations. It was named "the Great Bible," because of its large size. CRANMERE'S BIBLE, published in 1540, was essentially the the same as the Great Bible, but took his name on account of a few corrections which he made in it. THE GENEVA BIBLE was published at Geneva in 1560. The New Testament in 1557. Coverdale was one of the Geneva brethren who issued it. THE BISHOP'S BIBLE was a revisal of the English Bible, made by the bishops and compared with the originals. It was published in 1568. THE DOUAY BIBLE appeared in 1609, and was translated from the authentical Latin, or Vulgate. KING JAMES BIBLE, or the Authorized Version, was published in 1611. In the year 1604, forty-seven persons learned in the languages were appointed to revise the translation then in use. They were ordered to use the Bishop's Bible for the basis of the new version, and to alter it as little as the original would allow : but if the prior translations of Tyndale, Coverdale, Matthew, Cranmer or Whitchurch, and the Geneva edition agreed better with the text, to adopt the same. This translation was perhaps the best that could be made at the time, and if it had not been published by kingly authority, it would not now be venerated by English and American protestants, as though it had come direct from God. It has been convicted of containing over 20,000 errors. Nearly 700 Greek MSS. are now known, and some of them very ancient : whereas the translators of the common version had only the advantage of some 8 MSS. none of which was earlier than the tenth century. TO THE READER. THAT "All Scripture, divinely inspired, is profitable, for Teaching, for Conviction, for Correction, for that Instruction which is in Righteousness," is the truthful testimony of the Sacred Writings about themselves. We rejoice to express our conviction that the Word of God was perfect and infallible as it emanated from those holy men of old, the Prophets and Apostles, who "spoke, being moved by the Holy Spirit." As a revelation of Jehovah's will to the human race, it was requisite that it should be an unerring guide. Amid the ever conflicting strife of human opinions, and the endless diversity of thought, we needed such a standard, to lead us safely through the perplexing problems of life, to counsel us under all circumstances, to reveal the will of our Heavenly Parent, and to lift on high a celestial light, which streaming through the thick darkness that broods around, shall guide the feet of his erring and bewildered children to their loving Father's home. We needed therefore a testimony upon which to repose our faith and hope, free from all error, immutable, and harmonious in all its details -- something to tell us how to escape from the evils of the present, and attain to a glorious future. "With reverence and joy we acknowledge The Sacred Writings to be such, as they were originally dictated by the Holy Spirit. How important then that they should be correctly read and understood ! But can it be fairly said that such is the case with our present English Version? We opine not. Though freely acknowledging that it is sufficiently plain to teach men the social and religious duties of life, and the path to Immortality, yet it is a notable fact that King James' Translation is far from being a faithful reflection of the mind of the Spirit, as contained in the Original Greek in which the books of the New Testament were written. There are some thousands of words which are either mistranslated, or too obscurely rendered; besides others which are now obsolete, through improvement in the language. Besides this, it has been too highly colored in many places with the party ideas and opinions of those who made it, to be worthy of full and implicit confidence being placed in it as a genuine record. In the words of Dr. Macknight, "it was made a little too complaisant to the King, in favoring his notions of predestination. election, witchcraft, familiar spirits, and kingly rights, and these it is probable were also the translators' opinions. That their translation is partial, speaking the language of, and giving authority to one sect." And according to Dr. Gell, it was wrested and partial, " and only adapted to one sect ;" but he imputes this, not to the translators, but to those who employed them, for even some of the translators complained that they could not follow their own judgment in the matter, but were restrained by "reasons of state." The Version in common use will appear more imperfect still, when the fact is known, that it was not a translation from the Original, but merely a revision of the Versions then in use. This is evident from the following directions given by King James to the translators, viz.: "The Bishops' Bible to be followed, and altered as little as the Original will permit. And these translations to be used when they agree better with the text than the Bishops' Bible -- namely, Tyndale's, Matthew's, Coverdale's, Whitchurch's, Geneva." None of these were made from the Original Greek, but only compare with it -- being all translated from the Vulgate Latin. Hence it follows, that the authorized version is simply a revision of the Vulgate. And the Greek Text, with which it was compared, was compiled from Eight MSS. only, all of which were written since the tenth century, and are now considered of comparatively slight authority. The " Textua Receptus," or Received Greek Text, was made from these MSS., and is now proved to be the very worst Greek Text extant, in a printed form. And there was only one MSS. for the Book of Revelation, and part of that wanting, which was supplied by translating the Latin of the Vulgate into Greek ! Since the publication of the " Textus Rcccptus," and the Common Version, some 600 MSS. have been discovered, some of which are very ancient, and very valuable. The best and oldest of these is one marked B., Cod. Vaticanus, No. 1209, of the fourth and fifth centuries. The second marked A., Cod. Alexandrinus, of the fifth century. The third marked C, Cod. Fphrem., about the fifth century, and the fourth, marked D., Cod. Cantabujiensis, of the seventh century. Besides valuable assistance from ancient MSS., the DIAGLOTT has obtained material aid from the labors of many eminent Biblical Critics and Translators. Among these may be mentioned, -- Mill, Wetstein, Griesbach, Scholz, Lachmnnn, Tischendorf, Tittman, Tregelles, Doddridge. Macknight, Campbell, Koine, Middleton, Clark, Wakefield, Bloomfield, Thompson, Murdock, Kneeland, Boothroyd. Conquest, Sharpe, Gaussen. Turnbull, Trench, &c., &c. Should any person doubt the propriety of the Translation, in any particular part, let him not hastily censure or condemn till he has compared it carefully with the various authorities on which it is based; and even should he see reason to differ in some respects, a correct Greek Text is given, so that the Original may be always appealed to in cases of doubt. However imperfect the Translation may be considered by the Critic it cannot adulterate the Original. Yes, I love the King James Bible, BIT, that is only because I think that the men who did that translation did the best that they could under the conditions that they worked under, working with an earthly king who had political considerations first in mind, rather than holding as close as possible to the truth. That being said, I have no such kind regards for those who simply reprint those known errors in new copies/translations of the Bible. And they know!! You can find lists of spurious Bible verses that are passed around by those who use the King James Bible, so that they know what versus to cross out in their own copies. Yet, these same errors are reprinted time and again, just to make money. Is it correct to continue to furnish errors to people? Well, that is a decision that you must make. One thing I will warn you about. New versions of the Bible, when they come out, always claim that they 'are diligently compared with the originals.' This is true, but the only originals that they will use are the same 8 originals that were used for the King James Version. None of these date from before the 10th century, AND, they know that at least one of them is a false copy prepared by the Catholic church in order to fortify the belief in the trinity. That false copy is in a museum in Ireland, and everyone knows about it, except, of course, the people who buy Bibles. You should also carefully note that ALL 8 of those MSS were under the control of the Catholic church for centuries. Is there any wonder that there are errors in them?! Please, do your own research. Prove to yourself that what you read and trust is trustworthy. This is our obligation! Galatians 6:5 King James Version (KJV) For every man shall bear his own burden. No one can do this for you, or, make this decision for you. It is strictly YOUR decision. Your responsibility. Please make the effort. Poster Comment: Please remember, our Heavenly Father is love. Should we be any less? Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 15.
#2. To: pablo, all (#0)
Great. Another whacko here to tell everyone how his/her interpretation of of the Christian book of fairy tales is the correct one and why the other 34000+ Christian cults are wrong and will burn in hell. Yawn.
Yawn. Yes, it does get tedious. Lots of heat and little light. You can translate these books into any language you like, but the contradictions remain. Enough to keep Christians slicing and dicing one another forever.
Show me one, please, cause I have studied it rather extensively, and I have never found one..... once I took man's teachings/thinking out of the mix.
Show me one, please,... This should be interesting :)
There are no replies to Comment # 15. End Trace Mode for Comment # 15.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||