Yuku free message boards

Quote:

---

Traditional variants existed in 1611?

---

Variants existed in the 2nd/3rd century. The KJV translators did not have access to many of them.

Quote:

---

Translators made choices about which to include in the text? Translators wanted to inform readers about the most significant of the variants?

---

Yes, the KJV translators! I wonder why.

Quote:

---

The English speaking people AS A WHOLE adopted their decisions as standard, the definitive Bible in English, conferring upon this one version an authority unequalled before or after?

---

the vast majority of Americans do not even know about the 1611 textual varients or alteranative translations or more literal translations. Hardly any Americans have access to the real 1611, with translators notes and preface.

Quote:

---

Some people will NEVER accede to any standard, or any decision made by anyone else?

---

The 1611 translators were not KJV only, I do not see why other's would choose to be, except people who know nothing about how God has gotten the Word to us. For far much longer than 1400 years He has used imperfect handwritten manuscripts to get the Word to us.

We certainly have His Word, but not in one single perfect edition.

Quote:

---

There is NO WAY that God's glory could fill a tent of goatskin and camel's hair (or boxed house made of cedar and copper) and thereby establish authority?

---

Why would you think that way of me?

Quote:

---

If there is a point, make it.

---

Quote:

---

I just thought he posted it because he thought that people (even KJVOs) might find it interesting.

---

Quote:

---

It was to satisfy the dissenters (not the brownists or other separatists, of course, but the Puritans) that James I ordered a translation, with the express desire that it would become common to all. That is the reason for the elimination of doctrinal marginalia in the original KJV. In other words, the purpose behind the original KJV was to produce a STANDARD COMMON English Bible, not justly to be excepted against.

---

It was not doctrinal marginalia that "non-KJV translators" deleted!

Reasons Moving Us To Set Diversity of Senses in the Margin, where there is Great Probability for Each

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 so sound in this point. For though, whatsoever things are necessary are manifest, as S. Chrysostom saith, and as S. Augustine, In those things that are plainly set down in the Scriptures, all such matters are found that concern Faith, Hope, and Charity. Yet for all that it cannot be dissembled, that partly to exercise and whet our wits, partly to wean the curious from loathing of them for their every-where plainness, partly also to stir up our devotion to crave the assistance of God's spirit by prayer, and lastly, that we might be forward to seek aid of our brethren by conference, and never scorn those that be not in all respects so complete as they should be, being to seek in many things ourselves, it hath pleased God in his divine providence, here and there to scatter words and sentences of that difficulty and doubtfulness, not in doctrinal points that concern salvation, (for in such it hath been vouched that the Scriptures are plain) but in matters of less moment, that fearfulness would better beseem us than confidence, and if we will resolve, to resolve upon modesty with S. Augustine, (though not in this same case altogether, yet upon the same ground) Melius est dubitare de occultis, quam litigare de incertis, it is better to make doubt of those things which are secret, than to strive about those things that are uncertain. There be many words in the Scriptures, which be never found there but once, (having neither brother nor neighbor, as the Hebrews speak) so that we cannot be holpen by conference of places. Again, there be many rare names of certain birds, beasts and precious stones, etc. concerning which the Hebrews themselves are so divided among themselves for judgment, that they may seem to have defined this or that, rather because they would say something, than because they were sure of that which they said, as S. Jerome somewhere saith of the Septuagint. 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: 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. We know that Sixtus Quintus expressly forbiddeth, that any variety of readings of their vulgar edition, should be put in the margin, (which though it be not altogether the same thing to that we have in hand, yet it looketh that way) but we think he hath not all of his own side his favorers, for this conceit. 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. If they were sure that their high Priest had all laws shut up in his breast, as Paul the Second bragged, and that he were as free from error by special privilege, as the Dictators of Rome were made by law inviolable, it were another matter; then his word were an Oracle, his opinion a decision. But the eyes of the world are now open, God be thanked, and have been a great while, they find that he is subject to the same affections and infirmities that others be, that his skin is penetrable, and therefore so much as he proveth, not as much as he claimeth, they grant and embrace.

Quote:

---

their stated "goal, endeavor, and mark" was to produce "one principle good" translation that could not be "justly excepted against." Their stated opinion as the very argument of the preface was that they had accomplished that goal inclusively. No just exception! Many might "quarrel it," but not justly. It's old English, but surely you understand it,

---

I think it is obvious that you missunderstand the 1611 translators.

The Purpose of the Translators, with their Number, Furniture, Care, etc.

But it is high time to leave them, and to show in brief what we proposed to ourselves, and what course we held in this our perusal and survey of the Bible. 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.