Is the KJV a perfect rendering of the autographs in English?

[tall73]

While we have a more generic thread on the preservation of the Scriptures this topic is very specific. Some have claimed that God led the translators of the King James Version of the Bible to perfectly translate the KJV into English. They maintain that the KJV is a perfect reproduction of the autographs, or originals, into English. They maintain that the textual readings are correct and each translation into English is optimal and correct, through divine guidance given to the translators.

So the purpose of this thread is simply to see what evidence exists for or against the position that the KJV is the perfect translation into English of the autographs.

Please NOTE!
In order to keep this on topic I am going to list the things this thread is not about.
- This is not about whether the KJV uses out-dated language. That could be discussed in another thread.
-This is not about whether the KJV is written at an easier or harder reading level than other versions.
- This is not about modern versions of the Bible's shortcomings or strengths. Historical versions that played some role in the development of the KJV or the translators thoughts can be referenced. If the KJV is the perfect translation of the autographs into English that can be evaluated without reference to modern versions.
- This is not about modern textual critics and their approach to Scripture. This is about the approach used by those translating the KJV.

I believe the KJV to be a good translation. In the below examples it is not my purpose to discredit the KJV. What I am discussing is the notion, presented by some, that the Holy Spirit directed the translators of the KJV to the exact perfect translation of the autographs into English, choosing the perfect English phrase for each part.

 

[tall73]

I will begin by posting selections from the preface to the KJV presented along with it by the translators. It is entitled The Tranlators to the Reader


Some selections from the preface "The Translator to the Reader"

Preface to the King James Version 1611, Part 1 of 10


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.


Some peradventure would have no variety of senses to be set in the margin, lest the authority of the Scriptures for deciding of controversies by that show of uncertainty, should somewhat be shaken. But we hold their judgment not to be sound in this point.



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: [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.


and later:


They that are wise, had rather have their judgments at liberty in differences of readings, than to be captivated to one, when it may be the other.


While the translators note that they prayed for God's guidance during the process in other parts of the preface, they do not claim that they were led to just the correct reading in every instance.

The translators note their use of marginal readings precisely because the Spirit has left some things questionable. Therefore they give other readings in the margin to note that they are not sure which may be the correct one.

 

[tall73]

In discussing the reasons behind making a translation, and in this case a new translation from English, they discuss the case of the LXX. It helps us see their view of translation.


Therefore the word of God being set forth in Greek, becometh hereby like a candle set upon a candlestick, which giveth light to all that are in the house, or like a proclamation sounded forth in the market place, which most men presently take knowledge of; and therefore that language was fittest to contain the Scriptures, both for the first Preachers of the Gospel to appeal unto for witness, and for the learners also of those times to make search and trial by. 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.

and later:

Yet for all that, as the Egyptians are said of the Prophet to be men and not God, and their horses flesh and not spirit [Isa 31:3]; so it is evident, (and Saint Jerome affirmeth as much) [S. Jerome. de optimo genere interpret.] that the Seventy were Interpreters, they were not Prophets; they did many things well, as learned men; but yet as men they stumbled and fell, one while through oversight, another while through ignorance, yea, sometimes they may be noted to add to the Original, and sometimes to take from it; which made the Apostles to leave them many times, when they left the Hebrew, and to deliver the sense thereof according to the truth of the word, as the spirit gave them utterance.



and later:

The translation of the Seventy dissenteth from the Original in many places, neither doth it come near it, for perspicuity, gravity, majesty; yet which of the Apostles did condemn it? Condemn it? Nay, they used it, (as it is apparent, and as Saint Jerome and most learned men do confess) which they would not have done, nor by their example of using it, so grace and commend it to the Church, if it had been unworthy of the appellation and name of the word of God.


They did not demand that the LXX be perfectly free from error in translation before it was used and considered the word of God.

The church has always used what it had. It could not use what it did not have. Certainly there have been some translations that were not perfect, and some manuscripts that contained men's additions or subtractions. Yet God still used them to His glory, despite their failings.

Therefor the KJV translators do not feel a perfect version is necessary for the result to be still considered the word of God.

 

[SaintJoeNow]

"rendering" implies that putting God's word in writing was only a human endeavor. It was not. Holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. God dictated His word and men wrote it down in obedience to God. God used men whose "approach" in translating was obedience....obedient men to translate His word into English. The work of the KJV translators was approached as obedience to the King of England, in submission to God under the King of England.

 

[SaintJoeNow]

edited to keep focus as requested for thread

 

[SaintJoeNow]

While we have a more generic thread on the preservation of the Scriptures this topic is very specific. Some have claimed that God led the translators of the King James Version of the Bible to perfectly translate the KJV into English. They maintain that the KJV is a perfect rendering of the autographs, or originals, into English. They maintain that the textual readings are correct and each translation into English is optimal and correct, through divine guiding.

So the purpose of this thread is simply to see what evidence exists for or against the position that the KJV is the perfect translation into English of the autographs.

Please NOTE!
In order to keep this on topic I am going to list the things this thread is not about.
- This is not about whether the KJV uses out-dated language. That could be discussed in another thread.
-This is not about whether the KJV is written at an easier or harder reading level than other versions.
- This is not about modern versions of the Bible's shortcomings or strengths. Historical versions that played some role in the development of the KJV or the translators thoughts can be referenced. If the KJV is the perfect translation of the autographs into English that can be evaluated without reference to modern versions.
- This is not about modern textual critics and their approach to Scripture. This is about the approach used by those translating the KJV.

The approach used by those translating the KJV was submission to God under the authority of the King of England. God sets up the rulers of nations. You are trying to criticize the approach of the KJV translators while leaving out the part of their being in submission to authority. The authority came from God, the same as when Jesus told Pontius Pilate that he had no power except that His Father gave him that power.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

They maintain that the KJV is a perfect rendering of the autographs, or originals, into English.

But then they'd have to explain the demonstrable ERRORS OF FACT in the text, rendering it IMPERFECT - unless, of course, the "Autographs" were also imperfect.

 

[iambren]

KJV =a perfect rendering of the autographs?

No.

 

[Hammster]

"rendering" implies that putting God's word in writing was only a human endeavor. It was not. Holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. God dictated His word and men wrote it down in obedience to God. God used men whose "approach" in translating was obedience....obedient men to translate His word into English. The work of the KJV translators was approached as obedience to the King of England, in submission to God under the King of England.

What evidence is there to support this?

 

[Hammster]

The approach used by those translating the KJV was submission to God under the authority of the King of England. God sets up the rulers of nations. You are trying to criticize the approach of the KJV translators while leaving out the part of their being in submission to authority. The authority came from God, the same as when Jesus told Pontius Pilate that he had no power except that His Father gave him that power.

What evidence is there to support this?

 

[tall73]

"rendering" implies that putting God's word in writing was only a human endeavor.

This is about the translation of the KJV. I have never denied that God inspired the original autographs.

It was not. Holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. God dictated His word and men wrote it down in obedience to God. God used men whose "approach" in translating was obedience....obedient men to translate His word into English. The work of the KJV translators was approached as obedience to the King of England, in submission to God under the King of England.

I do not doubt that the translators were obedient to God and the king. That is not however the same as perfectly reproducing the autographs, only in English.

Now the subject of the thread is :

So the purpose of this thread is simply to see what evidence exists for or against the position that the KJV is the perfect translation into English of the autographs.

Do you have any evidence to present?

 

[tall73]

You are trying to criticize the approach of the KJV translators while leaving out the part of their being in submission to authority.

You appear to be misunderstanding my point. I am not trying to be critical of the approach of the KJV translators. In fact I simply posted some of their own words that spell out what that approach was.

I believe that the KJV is a good translation. I believe they were sincere men who asked God's blessing on their translating work. All but one were clergy, and I believe very much in submission to God.

Now what I object to is the people who ignore what the translators said about their work and try to make arguments for the translators that they never made. The translators did not think they were led to every correct reading by God. They included margin readings because sometimes they didn't know the correct reading, and thought it better to present both options. And they indicated they believe the Holy Spirit has left some things questionable. These are their statements about their work.

They also point out that even the "meanest" translation into English before theirs was the Word of God nevertheless.

So no, I am not criticizing the translators.

 

[SaintJoeNow]

the point is the approach of the translators of the KJV which you imply was only human and therefore could not possibly result in God's word being translated into English because all humans make errors.

The point you don't want to allow is that those humans approached the translation of the Bible into English as servants, submissive under authority of the King who was placed in authority by God. It's God's hand you are trying to exclude from bringing His word to the English speaking world.

As long as you exclude God's hand, you can make a life long carreer out of finding fault in the Bible and promoting your own intellect as the correct approach to translating God's word while the intellect of others was the same as yours, faulty but that's ok because you don't believe God preserved His word so the approach used by the translators really doesn't matter.


I'm keeping the focus as you requested on the approach of the translators.

 

[SaintJoeNow]

This is about the translation of the KJV. I have never denied that God inspired the original autographs.



I do not doubt that the translators were obedient to God and the king. That is not however the same as perfectly reproducing the autographs, only in English.

?

Now the subject of the thread is :


Do you have any evidence to present?

Well if they were obedient to God, but they failed to translate His word correctly, then they were independent of God weren't they? How can they be independent and obedient?

There is no evidence you will accept if you will not accept that God delivered His word to the English speaking world through men who approached the work of translating it into English as an action of obedience to God under His and the King of England's authority, and God made sure they got it right. If you won't believe God, you wont accept any evidence for His work. Your only other choice is your own authority in deciding which way you want to believe is best to put God's word in English, and I don't see by any authority how you can do that unless King Obama told you to do it....and even then, I won't buy it.

 

[tall73]

Well if they were obedient to God, but they failed to translate His word correctly, then they were independent of God weren't they? How can they be independent and obedient?

There is no evidence you will accept if you will not accept that God delivered His word to the English speaking world through men who approached the work of translating it into English as an action of obedience to God under His and the King of England's authority, and God made sure they got it right.

Please present the evidence that God made sure they got it right.

People may be obedient to God and still not be guided in every decision by him. You have presented no evidence they were guided in every decision. And the preface they presented makes it very clear they made no claim to guidance on all readings, or getting it all right.

This is why they included marginal readings, etc. This is why they indicated that the Holy Spirit left some things questionable.

If you won't believe God, you wont accept any evidence for His work.

You have presented no statement by God that He led these men to correct translation. And it would be curious to find how you would say this. The Scriptures do not mention the KJV translation project.

You have presented no statement by the translators that God did this. In fact their words state the opposite.

So saying I do not believe God is simply a misrepresentation. God made no statement that He led the KJV translators to a perfect English translation.

Your only other choice is your own authority in deciding which way you want to believe is best to put God's word in English, and I don't see by any authority how you can do that unless King Obama told you to do it....and even then, I won't buy it.

I can simply take the translators at their own statements where they indicate that the Spirit left some things questionable.



Let's review the purpose of this thread. You are to present EVIDENCE of God leading the translators to a perfect English translation of the autographs.

You have not done this. You have said we are disbelieving God. Yet you present no statement by God on the subject of the KJV translators.

You ignore the translators own words that go against your position.

You have basically offered no evidence at all of your position.

Now if it is your position that the KJV is the perfect English translation of the autographs, then spell out the evidence for that.

 

[tall73]

There is no evidence you will accept if you will not accept that God delivered His word to the English speaking world through men who approached the work of translating it into English as an action of obedience to God under His and the King of England's authority, and God made sure they got it right .

Not only have you failed to present evidence for your view that God directed them to every right reading, but you have failed to address the evidence presented against your view by the translators themselves.

Please explain what you think the translators mean when they say this:

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: [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.

 

[miamited]

While we have a more generic thread on the preservation of the Scriptures this topic is very specific. Some have claimed that God led the translators of the King James Version of the Bible to perfectly translate the KJV into English. They maintain that the KJV is a perfect rendering of the autographs, or originals, into English. They maintain that the textual readings are correct and each translation into English is optimal and correct, through divine guiding.

So the purpose of this thread is simply to see what evidence exists for or against the position that the KJV is the perfect translation into English of the autographs.

Please NOTE!
In order to keep this on topic I am going to list the things this thread is not about.
- This is not about whether the KJV uses out-dated language. That could be discussed in another thread.
-This is not about whether the KJV is written at an easier or harder reading level than other versions.
- This is not about modern versions of the Bible's shortcomings or strengths. Historical versions that played some role in the development of the KJV or the translators thoughts can be referenced. If the KJV is the perfect translation of the autographs into English that can be evaluated without reference to modern versions.
- This is not about modern textual critics and their approach to Scripture. This is about the approach used by those translating the KJV.

Hi tall,

I honestly can't understand how anyone would even be able to prove or disprove the point. We don't have the autographs. All we have are copies that we assume, due to age and use, are likely close to the original manuscripts. They may well be, but they also may contain some slight changes or errors as they were handed down through the ages. We just don't know.

What we do know is the word of God has been promised to endure through the ages. It has. They have been translated by various people in various places throughout the world. Most of those who have given of their time and effort to complete the translations have done so with the utmost respect and reverence for the word of God. Realizing that it is not something to be trifled with but is a work of love and desire for others to come to know the one true and living God and the way of salvation that He has made that men might be saved.

Of all the good reliable translations that I have read, I find that none of them fail in that effort and believe that it is that effort for which God gave unto men His word. I don't read the Scriptures asking myself, "I wonder if these exact words are what Paul and Peter and John, or Isaiah and Jeremiah or Daniel wrote down. I read them asking myself, "Let me find the truth of the one who created me and what His desires and plans are for me." I look at the Scriptures as an overall body of work that God, through His Holy Spirit and the hands of faithful men of God, has cobbled together that I might know who He is; what He has done; what His purpose is in all of this; what should my response be?

So, needless to say, I applaud and praise the work for what I believe it was intended to be. Not something for us to argue, bicker and fight over the individual words, but rather something which we can count on and be assured is the truth that God wants us to know.

Much like the warning we find about swimming: Always swim with someone else; never swim alone; always swim with a buddy, they are all worded differently, but the intention is to let someone know that they shouldn't swim alone. Similarly, with the Scriptures, I'm not so much interested in whether the words are exactly the same words, but rather, after reading through the entire material I want to know: Is this the truth about what God is conveying to me?

My understanding of the Scriptures is that God wants us to know that He created this realm. That He has the power to also destroy all that He created. That He spent some 1500 years raising up a body of people on the earth to be His people to convey through them His written words and to usher in His Messiah and way of salvation. That now that He has done all this, He is asking each and every one of us individually to make a choice. That choice is whether we will love, honor, respect and praise Him for who He is, or not?

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[DeaconDean]

They also point out that even the "meanest" translation into English before theirs was the Word of God nevertheless.

Robert Joyner explains in the article "WERE THE KING JAMES TRANSLATORS KJV ONLY?" saying:

THEY BELIEVED IN MAKING NEW TRANSLATIONS OFTEN

On page 8 the King James translators talk about making new translations. They ask, "Who would have ever thought that was a fault? To amend it where he saw cause?" Then they say, "That is our business. The difference that appears between our translation and our often correcting of them is the thing that we are especially charged with." (See Appendix A, quote 6) It is the translator’s business to continually update the language, not because God’s Word is outdated, but because English changes. The English language has changed some in my lifetime. Young people do not use the same expressions as when I was a teenager. In the book, THE KING JAMES BIBLE WORD BOOK, by Ronald Bridges and Luther Weigle, the authors list 827 words that are obsolete or archaic.

Translators are not supposed to make one translation and go into retirement. It is their business to make new translations and keep them updated. That is the reason the King James translators immediately started to revise the 1611 edition and came out with another in 1613 and another in 1629 (when they left out the Apocrypha).

After reading what the KJV translators have said, I feel sure they would favor the New King James Version over the 1769 version that we use today. They said the Bible should be in the common vernacular of the people. (Page 11)

By the way, the King James Version is a British translation, not an American translation. There are a few English words that have a different meaning from ours. For example, if you go into a restaurant in England and ask for a napkin, they will give you a baby diaper.

Source

I believe he makes a very valid point.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[miamited]

BTW,

For all those who read the modern versions, which includes the KJ and many before it, every period and every comma is an added jot or tittle to the original autographs of the word of God. Every paragraph and every chapter and verse numbering, is an added jot or tittle to the word of God.

All the divisions of sentencing and paragraphs and sectioning, other than book from book, is an addition that man has made to the word of God. We don't even know for sure that we have carried over the correct inflection and separation from thought to thought as rendered in the original manuscripts. The account of Jesus words to the thief on the cross are a perfect example:

I tell you today that you will be with me in paradise.

Did Jesus mean to say that on this very day he would be with him? Or was Jesus telling him that on this very day I am letting you know that when the time comes, you will be with me in paradise.

God bless you all.
In Christ, Ted

 

[tall73]

Hi tall,

I honestly can't understand how anyone would even be able to prove or disprove the point. We don't have the autographs. All we have are copies that we assume, due to age and use, are likely close to the original manuscripts. They may well be, but they also may contain some slight changes or errors as they were handed down through the ages. We just don't know.

Yes, part of the problem is that about 2 percent of the content of the Scriptures in the manuscripts we have disagree, and it is hard to know which variants are correct.

What we do know is the word of God has been promised to endure through the ages. It has. They have been translated by various people in various places throughout the world. Most of those who have given of their time and effort to complete the translations have done so with the utmost respect and reverence for the word of God. Realizing that it is not something to be trifled with but is a work of love and desire for others to come to know the one true and living God and the way of salvation that He has made that men might be saved.

Agreed there as well. I would take a similar position to the translators on the LXX for instance. Despite errors it was still used by God for His purpose.

Of all the good reliable translations that I have read, I find that none of them fail in that effort and believe that it is that effort for which God gave unto men His word. I don't read the Scriptures asking myself, "I wonder if these exact words are what Paul and Peter and John, or Isaiah and Jeremiah or Daniel wrote down. I read them asking myself, "Let me find the truth of the one who created me and what His desires and plans are for me." I look at the Scriptures as an overall body of work that God, through His Holy Spirit and the hands of faithful men of God, has cobbled together that I might know who He is; what He has done; what His purpose is in all of this; what should my response be?

So, needless to say, I applaud and praise the work for what I believe it was intended to be. Not something for us to argue, bicker and fight over the individual words, but rather something which we can count on and be assured is the truth that God wants us to know.

Much like the warning we find about swimming: Always swim with someone else; never swim alone; always swim with a buddy, they are all worded differently, but the intention is to let someone know that they shouldn't swim alone. Similarly, with the Scriptures, I'm not so much interested in whether the words are exactly the same words, but rather, after reading through the entire material I want to know: Is this the truth about what God is conveying to me?

My understanding of the Scriptures is that God wants us to know that He created this realm. That He has the power to also destroy all that He created. That He spent some 1500 years raising up a body of people on the earth to be His people to convey through them His written words and to usher in His Messiah and way of salvation. That now that He has done all this, He is asking each and every one of us individually to make a choice. That choice is whether we will love, honor, respect and praise Him for who He is, or not?

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

Certainly you are correct regarding the main point of Scripture reading.

Having said that, I think it is helpful to have scholars that try to learn what the original readings are. I just can't find the evidence that indicates the KJV is perfect in that regard, which some propose.