Onlyism and Biblical Preservation

Status
Not open for further replies.

Huldrych

Kein typischer Amerikaner
Mar 6, 2003
79
1
54
AK
Visit site
✟15,205.00
Faith
Christian
I'm interested in putting some of Onlyism's ideas about Biblical preservation to the test.

I know, we've heard variations on this theme before. It's the old "Where was God's Word before 1611" challenge. But, if Onlyism's theories about preservation (a la Psalm 12) are true, then there should be at least one pre-1611 Bible we can find that served as the vehicle for God's preserved words before the AV1611 arrived on the scene.

So, is there any Onlyist who can identify any one such Bible we can compare the KJV to?

jth
 

clinzey

Well-Known Member
Jan 9, 2004
791
15
45
California
✟16,044.00
Faith
Protestant
Henhouse said:
Yup.
Tyndale is about 85% word-for-word of the KJV.

This is because the KJV translators were told to use Tyndale as their version unless they disagreed with it - then they were to use a different version. There's not much original material in the KJV. They copied others' work.
 
Upvote 0

Huldrych

Kein typischer Amerikaner
Mar 6, 2003
79
1
54
AK
Visit site
✟15,205.00
Faith
Christian
christian-only said:
KJVO's point to the Old Latin (pre-Vulgate) which, apparently, is really hard to find nowadays.
This is hiding behind obscurities and hoping no one will press the issue. But even then, Doug Kutilek identified at least 26 discrepancies between the Old Latin and the Textus Receptus:

http://www.kjvonly.org/doug/waldensian.htm

And if they don't line up, you can't say you've got anything that proves the Onlyist take on Biblical Preservation.

jth
 
Upvote 0

@@Paul@@

The Key that Fits:Acts 28
Mar 24, 2004
3,050
72
53
Seattle
✟11,081.00
Faith
Baptist
clinzey said:
This is because the KJV translators were told to use Tyndale as their version unless they disagreed with it - then they were to use a different version. There's not much original material in the KJV. They copied others' work.

That is simply NOT true. They were told to use the Bishops Bible AND to alter IT as little as possible. AND the earlier english translations (Tyndale, Matthew and Geneva) should have only been used to be used IF they were more accurate than the Bishops Bible.

INSTRUCTIONS TO THE TRANSLATORS.
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.
2. The names of the prophets and the holy writers, with the other names in the text, to be retained, as near as may be, accordingly as they are vulgarly used.
3. The old ecclesiastical words to be kept, as the word church, not to be translated congregation.
4. When any word hath divers significations, that to be kept which hath been most commonly used by the most eminent fathers, being agreeable to the propriety of the place and the analogies of faith.
5. The division of chapters to be altered either not at all, or as little as may be, if necessity so require.
6. No marginal notes at all to be affixed, but only for the explanation of the Hebrew or Greek words, which cannot, without some circumlocution, so briefly and fitly be expressed, in the text.
7. Such quotations of places to be marginally set down as shall serve for the fit reference of one Scripture to another.
8. Every particular man of each company to take the same chapter or chapters; and, having translated or amended them severally by himself where he thinks good, all to meet together to confirm what they have done, and agree for their part what shall stand.
9. As any one company hath dispatched any one book in this manner, they shall send it to the rest, to be considered of seriously and judiciously; for his Majesty is very careful on this point.
10. If any company, upon the review of the book so sent, shall doubt or differ upon any places, to send them word thereof, to note the places, and therewithal to send their reasons; to which if they consent not, the difference to be compounded at the general meeting, which is to be of the chief persons of each company, at the end of the work.
11. When any place of special obscurity is doubted of, letters to be directed by authority to send to any learned man in the land for his judgment of such a place.
12. Letters to be sent from every bishop to the rest of his clergy, admonishing them of this translation in hand, and to move and charge as many as, being skillful in the tongues, have taken pains in that kind, to send their particular observations to the company, either at Westminster, Cambridge, or Oxford, according as it was directed before in the king's letter to the archbishop.
13. The directors in each company to be the Deans of Westminster and Chester, for Westminster, and the king's professors in Hebrew and Greek in the two universities.
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."
15. By a later rule, "three or four of the most ancient and grave divines, in either of the universities, not employed in translating, to be assigned to be overseers of the translation, for the better observation of the fourth rule."

So when would the translators use Tyndale's translation over the Bishops bible?
 
Upvote 0

clinzey

Well-Known Member
Jan 9, 2004
791
15
45
California
✟16,044.00
Faith
Protestant
@@Paul@@ said:
So when would the translators use Tyndale's translation over the Bishops bible?

I never said that Tyndale's would be used over the Bishop's Bible, simply that Tyndale's was used in the translation process and that there is no original work in the KJV - just other translatations restated.
 
Upvote 0

@@Paul@@

The Key that Fits:Acts 28
Mar 24, 2004
3,050
72
53
Seattle
✟11,081.00
Faith
Baptist
clinzey said:
I never said that Tyndale's would be used over the Bishop's Bible, simply that Tyndale's was used in the translation process and that there is no original work in the KJV - just other translatations restated.

So when would the translators use Tyndale's translation over the Bishops bible?
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​
Answer: only IF Tyndale's translation "agreed better with the text". The point was never to create an entirely NEW translation AND +/- 85% of the KJV ended up being from Tyndale's translation because they did not see a need to re-translate it. Their first choice (when comparing the english translations to the underling text) was the Bishops Bible...IF they were simply "restating" and not actually doing any "original" work, they should have used 85% of that bible.

If only the translators today had such reverence for God's Words....
 
Upvote 0

clinzey

Well-Known Member
Jan 9, 2004
791
15
45
California
✟16,044.00
Faith
Protestant
@@Paul@@ said:
So when would the translators use Tyndale's translation over the Bishops bible?
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​
Answer: only IF Tyndale's translation "agreed better with the text". The point was never to create an entirely NEW translation AND +/- 85% of the KJV ended up being from Tyndale's translation because they did not see a need to re-translate it. Their first choice (when comparing the english translations to the underling text) was the Bishops Bible...IF they were simply "restating" and not actually doing any "original" work, they should have used 85% of that bible.

They weren't doing any original work. They simply used the translations of others for their own book. Since this is so, how can anyone claim the KJV inspired? It's other Bibles all mixed together - it's a Scripture cocktail.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

@@Paul@@

The Key that Fits:Acts 28
Mar 24, 2004
3,050
72
53
Seattle
✟11,081.00
Faith
Baptist
clinzey said:
They weren't doing any original work. They simply used the translations of others for their own book. Since this is so, how can anyone claim the KJV inspired? It's other Bibles all mixed together - it's a Scripture cocktail.

I guess my argument was this, IF a translation can be inspired, What gives us the right to say that Tyndale's NT was NOT inspired? AND if it was, what is the problem with the KJV translators using that?

William Tyndale had to have been inspired by God for what he did. And knowing that the KJV translators used most of his work assures me of this fact. William Tyndale was a great man who did not get burned at the stake for nothing...

This "scripture cocktail" was always compared to "the text"; If it ain't broke, don't fix it...... I fail to see your argument.
 
Upvote 0

clinzey

Well-Known Member
Jan 9, 2004
791
15
45
California
✟16,044.00
Faith
Protestant
@@Paul@@ said:
I guess my argument was this, IF a translation can be inspired,

Can we say this? Is the translation inspired or the documents needing to be translated?

What gives us the right to say that Tyndale's NT was NOT inspired? AND if it was, what is the problem with the KJV translators using that?

This blows the "KJV is the only inspired translation" out of the water.

This "scripture cocktail" was always compared to "the text"; If it ain't broke, don't fix it...... I fail to see your argument.

My argument is simply this - one cannot claim that the KJV is the only inspired translation when it is not an independant translation, but based on the work of others.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.