The King James Version of the Bible

And why it is the best translation available today. Very good read put out by the PRCA.


A Puritan's Petition
Four Puritans along with fourteen representatives of the Church of England were gathered together at Hampton Court for an ecclesiastical conference in January 1604. The Puritans had many objections concerning the English Church as it was then established. They were hoping that their new king, James I, would so guide the Church of God in England that there would be further reformation of the Church. They wanted to make the Church of England more like the Reformed Church of Geneva and the Presbyterian Churches of Scotland. They had already met James on his way to London where he was to receive the English crown and had presented him with a petition stating their grievances. The petition was signed by about a thousand clergyman and therefore called the Millenary Petition. It was on account of that petition that James had called the conference to hear and determine things pretended to be amiss in the Church.

It did not go so well for the Puritans, however. Not only were they in the minority at the conference, but King James, rather than sympathizing with them, supported the cause of the High Churchmen or Conformists who did not want the Presbyterian form of Church government. In the midst of their struggle Dr. John Reynolds, the Puritan president of Corpus Christi College, suddenly petitioned the king, that there might be a new translation of the Bible, because those which were allowed in the reigns of Henry VIII and Edward VI were corrupt and not answerable to the truth of the original. This motion of the Puritan leader evidently was not something which he had planned but something that was introduced incidentally in order to keep from losing all ground at the conference.

This is confirmed by the preface to the readers entitled The Translators To The Readers which was found in the first edition of the King James Version. There we read, ...the very historical truth is that upon the importunate petitions of the Puritans, at his Majesties coming to the crown, the conference at Hampton Court having been appointed for hearing their complaints; when by force of reason they were put from all other grounds, they had recourse at the last, to this shift, that they could not with good conscience subscribe to the Communion Book, since it maintained the Bible as it was there translated, which was as they said, a most corrupted translation.

The Puritans did object to the translations of the Great Bible and the Bishops' Bible which were quoted in the Prayer Book, but they did not zealously demand a new translation. They were content with their Geneva Bible and its Calvinistic notes. The motion for a new translation was incidental to them. In fact, if it were up to them, there probably would not be a King James Version of the Bible.

__________________
1689 Baptist Confession

Psa 55:16 As for me, I will call upon God; and the LORD shall save me.
Psa 55:17 Evening, and morning, and at noon, will I pray, and cry aloud: and he shall hear my voice.
James Farley, Wilderness Road Baptist Assembly.
Husband of Melissa and father of Ann.
www.wildernessroadbaptist.org

so there is no way, other folk today could meet these reasons as put forth in the article?
1) It was translated by men who are unsurpassed in their knowledge of Biblical studies.
operitive phrase would be unsurpassed at that time. to insist that there are no people equally as brilliant or learned in Biblical studies would be silly no?
2) The translators were pious men of God who believed in the inspiration of the Holy Scriptures.
~ so there is no way that there could be other groups today of Godly scholars with a vast knowledge of those tounges?
3) It is the mature fruit of generations of English translations as well as the careful work of its translators.
~ so there is no way that there could be other groups today of Godly scholars with a vast knowledge of those tounges?

4) The King James Version is based upon the Received Text rather than the critical Greek text of modern versions.
~have we at any point since the KJV, found OLDER manuscripts of Scripture? wouldnt it be important to make sure that translations reflect the oldest available? there are a lot of variants.

5) It is a word-for-word translation which faithfully and accurately reflects the originals.
~ how are the versions today that claim the same thing any different? some words have multiple meanings that would not effect the rest of the verse.
6) The language is one of reverence and respect which gives honor to the majesty of its Author.
~ there are other translations that do, please share specific proofs that support this. Using versions that most here would probably aggree with (ESV/Geneva/NASB/etc.)

8) Our spiritual forefathers thought so highly of it that they were willing to suffer and even die for it.
~ so folk are persecuted like they were. this is not a valid argument for supremecy.
---------------------------
still, it was an intresting article, thanks for sharing

__________________
Jeff Rod
Eastwood Presbyterian Church PCA
member.
webpage: myspace.com/reformationforever

To live a simple, peaceable life before God
To owe as little as possible, to few as possible.

Long live the King!! Nice article!! Mega-Ditto's!

__________________
Timothy Johnson
First United Presbyterian of Moline
PCUSA (Yea, I know)
Theology/Philosophy Sunday School Teacher
Davenport, IA

furthermore I would have to ask, Doesnt the KJV state that language changes hence there must be changes in the KJV version? also, which KJV version to my reckoning there are more than one revisions of the KJV.


bear in mind, these are questions ive had for a while and so far no one has been able to provide a non heresay? or non conjecture? answer?? (which ever one is he said she said)

I really liked this part:




God's Word To His Church
Authorized Bible
The new translation did not immediately take over all others. For some time there was a struggle with the Geneva Bible. But in the end, the people of God recognized the superior qualities of the King James Version so that it conquered all others. It has gone through hundreds and hundreds of editions since it was first published in 1611. Some changes have been made in the spelling, punctuation, italicizing, and cross references. Nevertheless, the King James Version which we have today is basically the same as that published in 1611. It is still the choice of God's people too. Even with all the competition from the modern versions, the King James Version is one of the most popular of all versions.

As far as we know the King James Version, also called the Authorized Version, was never authorized. Even thought it was appointed by the King, it was never approved by Parliament nor the Convocation, nor the Privy Council. Nevertheless, it is recognized by God's people as the Authorized Bible-God's Authorized Bible. God has so worked in the hearts of His people that it has been recognized as God's Word by generation after generation of English-speaking Christians. It has been recognized as the version which God has given to us in His good providence. There is no other translation so universally regarded as God's Word.

Jeff,

Sorry I can't take the time to answer your questions / objections above as as it is I am stealing from my sleep to be writing, but perhaps you would find some extended discussions of these very issues of value. I post here some threads where these things are delved into.

I hope some of the things you question may be answered here (I know it's a good bit of reading, but there's good info, which you may appreciate).

Steve


Why do KJ Only types believe the Westcott and Hort manuscripts are bad?

What is the authentic New Testament text?

Answering Alan Kurschner of aomin

Textual Manuscripts?

Defending the Lord's Prayer 1

"Do Many Scholars Prefer the Majority Text?"

Do textual variants give us confidence?

verbal plenary preservation

Mark 16:12

__________________
Steve Rafalsky
Elder, International Evangelical Church (Reformed)
Limassol, Cyprus

"I am set for the defense of the gospel" (Philippians 1:17)

"Strengthened with all might, according to His glorious
power, unto all patience and longsuffering with joyfulness..." (Colossians 1:11)

From the article:

Although this was probably not the intent of the original author it is rather revealing that the best translation of the Bible is in English, and not in Dutch, Chinese etc.

I wonder if other language groups make translations of the Bible in an older, antiquated version of their current tongue? Perhaps we should be looking at our cultural preferences, not making assumptions about the superiority of our translations.

__________________
Rev. Daniel Kok
Pastor of Grace Reformed Church (URCNA)
Leduc, Alberta CANADA
Church Blog

"there is no creature, either in heaven or on earth, who loves us more than Jesus Christ"
Belgic Confession, Article 26

Ill look into those posts. but im not asking which Greek text should be the basis of translation. Im asking on what authority can we insist that the KJV is an inspired English translation to be held up above all others? what about the mistranslations of the KJV? ITs fine if one prefers the KJV, but to assert KJV primacy is rather silly i should think.

A claim for KJV primacy or support for the TR also verges on the idolitrous. KJV prefered or support for the MT are fine in my book, but to go beyond such positions is very questionable.

__________________
Mike
London City Presbyterian Church
London
England

"Surely, we wish to be orthodox, but we must first learn what real orthodoxy is. Surely, we wish to be progressive, but we must first have a basis to progress from."

I think you are correct is saying that this was not the author's original intent. He probably would agree that the best translation of the Bible in English is the AV (rather than saying the best translation is in English). It is my understanding that the Old Dutch Bible and the Old French (Louis Segond) are TR based and still endorsed by TR advocates although they obviously use older Dutch and French vocabulary and style. Someone feel free to correct me if I am mistaken here.

__________________
Rev. Adam King
Pastor, Westminster Presbyterian Church (WPCUS)
Lyndon, VT
www.vt.wpcus.org

This is very strong language, friend. What about the conviction that God has providentially preserved his word in the body of texts we know as the TR strikes you as verging on idolatry?

Just because I have convictions it does not make them right and we should all examine our convictions in light of the faith.

Any sect can claim that its beliefs have been providentially preserved, it is a Roman argument and is always an assertion. I just cannot see the logic in asserting the TR has been providentially preserved especially as the TR contained noted that have been corrected.

I really do not mean to be confrontational about this, but the faith derives from apostolic truth not "because it is" type arguments.

because God gave us his word in Hebrew and Greek period, end of that discussion.

2) many learned men from 100 AD till this very second have vast depths of learning and knowledge in the ORiginal HEbrew and greek. TO insist that the KJV is better because the folk who translated it had superior language expertise is a fallacious he said she said argument

3) God promised that HIs Original words in hebrew and greek would be preserved. Not translations.

4) if the KJV folk were inspired in the translation how can you say others arent? to say they arent is to deny GOD the ability to grant them the necessary knowledge to translate,

5) to insist that the AV is the best translation or the only "God apporoved" is erroneous. THe KJV borrows from the Geneva Bible around 60% or so??

6) there are translations errors in the KJV, As with any translation, the translation is subject at all times to human error. WHy on earth do you think the puritans were so big on teaching children the original tounges??

im not arguing against the Textus receptus at this point. Im arguing against the silly notion that the KJV is the best God ordained english translatiton.

Poimen,

The Reina-Valera is a Spanish Bibles that :

is important to note that this translation was based on the Hebrew Masoretic Text (Bomberg's Edition, 1525) and the Greek Textus Receptus (Stephanus' Edition, 1550). As secondary sources Reina was aided by the Ferrara Bible for the Old Testament and the Latin Edition of Santes Pagnini throughout.

In other words it is older than the KJV. By the way the Greek New Testaments (i.e.,Polyglot Bible) that Erasmus used, was from the Spain. And the Greek New Testament that the KJV translators used was the 1550 Robert Stephanus edition (also from Spain if I am not mistaken).

So you say that the KJV is the best bible translated, I think is an overstatement, since where did you think the KJV came from?

FYI, Francisco de Enzinas, of Spain, who help translate the Reina-Valera even taught Greek in Cambridge thanks to Thomas Cranmer. This Enzinas, Spanish Reformer, was also where John Foxe, author of the famous English Book, Foxe's Book of Martyrs, got his eyewitness accounts which were originally penned by Enzinas and not John Foxe. Much more can be said... but this is good enough.

Having said that, I nevertheless, when I read my Bible in English it is the KJV.

__________________
Gil Garcia
Rehoboth Reformed Church (RCUS)
La Habra, CA


"Indeed, one might say that as far as the doctrine of justification
is concerned, if you are not on the road to Wittenberg or Geneva, then the old proverb is indeed true: all roads lead to Rome." Carl Trueman

With all due respect, friend, I think you are missing my point. I did not assert that because I had a conviction that it was right. I asked, what about that conviction you found to be "verging on idolatry" (to use your words). I am glad we are agreed that faith derives from apostolic truth

I just happen to believe that that truth is accessible in the Scriptures, and that those Scriptures (in the NT) are what we commonly call the TR. This certainly is not a Romish doctrine (the Romanists disagreed!). I think the comparision is not valid.

But do you hold the the TR (i.e that particular manuscript) or do you believe that similiar manuscripts (i.e. non Alexandrian) can be examined in order to ascertain what the original form of the underlying text was(i.e. MT)?

The problem with the TR position is that to say that one particulat text was providentially preserved is a "because it is argument" and that is problematic. It is like saying that a particular translation is providential and must have supremacy be that the KJV or the Vulgate.

THE best version?????????? It is the one that I will actually read and study on a regular basis.

__________________
Dave Gray
Bayview Orthodox Presbyterian Church
San Diego, CA
www.bayviewopc.org

I am not sure I understand your post. I didn't say that the KJV is the best bible translation, the author of the article that was cited did.

From your post you wrote:

[quote=Poimen;388965]
Although this was probably not the intent of the original author it is rather revealing that the best translation of the Bible is in English, and not in Dutch, Chinese etc.

I was informing you that there are other languages such as Spanish with a fine translation of the Bible.

And I was trying to answer your below question;

As I wonder if other language groups make translations of the Bible in an older, antiquated version of their current tongue?

I guess I misunderstood what your wrote, sorry.

I have to prepare for my lesson tomorrow evening, so I don't have time to get into anything tonight.

First, would you please indicate where the author or anyone in this thread has asserted that "the KJV is an inspired English translation?"

Second, the textual issue is the heart of the debate, and primacy rests first there, secondarily upon the Authorized Version as a five fold revision of English Bibles beginning with Tyndale and ending with the Bishops Bible.

Third the Authorized Version is the fountainhead through which the English language itself, and the divine foundation upon which English common law countries rests. It shouldn't be silly to argue for the primacy of the Declaration of Independence unto the political institutions of the United States, should it? Nor should it be perceived as silly to argue for the primacy of the Authorized Version as the binding tie between law and gospel in the sociological foundations of American society, it's just a matter of historical facts.

__________________
Thomas Weddle
Member, Covenant Reformed Presbyterian Church
Evansville, Indiana