On another board, that shall remain nameless, to protect the identities of intellectually dull KJ Bible Bullies, Matt the Aussie posted this blurb about the
marginal notes in the KJV:
The KJB men did not put "alternate" readings in the margin.
77: Actually, Matt, they did; that's why they are referred to as "marginal" notes.
They put varieties of sense or translations into the margin, but they chose what
would stand as the main text.
77: Well, duh Mathew! They wrote the KJV, not the Elizabethan prototype of the Amplified Bible!
Thus, it is not an equal choice between margin and
main text as though we have two equal alternates. They are not "alternate". One
was considered variant.
77: That is true in a very narrow sense, but is mostly misleading. What THEY said:
" 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..."
"There be many words in the Scriptures which be never found there but once (having neither brother nor neighbor [ipax legomena], as the Hebrews speak), so that we cannot be holden 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 St. 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 (I.E. Final; absolute) ?"
"Now, their actual words on this matter include stating, "deciding of
controversies" (meaning that the choice between two would not be unknown
forever), "doth not a margin do well to admonish the Reader to seek further, and
not to conclude or dogmatize upon this or that peremptorily?" (meaning, if we
seek, we will find, not remain perplexed), "variety of translations is
profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures" (meaning that we
might actually find out the sense, not be stuck with multiple translations,
because only one in the end would be right).
77: That is Matt the Aussie's interpretation of what the translators are saying. Matt pretends that he has been given "apostolic" authority to determine which revision of the unrevised King Jimmy is "the one," so this self-serving interpretation of Matt's should come as no surprise to anybody..
What the translators actually said: "We have not tied ourselves to a uniformity of phrasing, or to an identity of words, as some peradventure would wish that we had done. …Why should we be in bondage to them [words or syllables] if we may be free, use one precisely when we may use another no less fit, as commodiously? …We have … avoided the scrupulosity of the Puritans."
"Now, many godly men have accepted the KJB, and have seen that the margins are
not the best, but have said that the KJB as it stands is good. The issue has
been resolved."
77: The issue that is really no issue at all, except to the KJ Bible Bullies, has been resolved, but not the way Matt the Aussie would like us to believe. What the translators actually wrote about this "issue":
"If people would yet like to examine the margins, they can do so,
but they should not do so with the view of trying to prove the KJB wrong,
because it simply does not work that way."
77: It's not a matter of proving the KJV wrong, rather it's a matter of not buying Matt the Aussie's claims for the so-called "pure" Cambridge edition King Jimmy, or buying his make believe "apostolic" authority to prevaricate on the King Jimmy.
"The KJB men did not put "alternate" readings in the margin.
They put varieties of sense or translations into the margin, but they chose what
would stand as the main text. Thus, it is not an equal choice between margin and
main text as though we have two equal alternates. They are not "alternate". One
was considered variant.
Now, their actual words on this matter include stating, "deciding of
controversies" (meaning that the choice between two would not be unknown
forever), "doth not a margin do well to admonish the Reader to seek further, and
not to conclude or dogmatize upon this or that peremptorily?" (meaning, if we
seek, we will find, not remain perplexed), "variety of translations is
profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures" (meaning that we
might actually find out the sense, not be stuck with multiple translations,
because only one in the end would be right).
The KJB men said that "there should be one more exact Translation of the holy
Scriptures into the English Tongue." The KJB is final and it is exact.
Now, many godly men have accepted the KJB, and have seen that the margins are
not the best, but have said that the KJB as it stands is good. The issue has
been resolved. If people would yet like to examine the margins, they can do so,
but they should not do so with the view of trying to prove the KJB wrong,
because it simply does not work that way. (Attacking the KJB doesn't work any
way.)"
The KJB men did not put "alternate" readings in the margin.
77: Actually, Matt, they did; that's why they are referred to as "marginal" notes.
They put varieties of sense or translations into the margin, but they chose what
would stand as the main text.
77: Well, duh Mathew! They wrote the KJV, not the Elizabethan prototype of the Amplified Bible!
Thus, it is not an equal choice between margin and
main text as though we have two equal alternates. They are not "alternate". One
was considered variant.
77: That is true in a very narrow sense, but is mostly misleading. What THEY said:
" 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..."
"There be many words in the Scriptures which be never found there but once (having neither brother nor neighbor [ipax legomena], as the Hebrews speak), so that we cannot be holden 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 St. 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 (I.E. Final; absolute) ?"
"Now, their actual words on this matter include stating, "deciding of
controversies" (meaning that the choice between two would not be unknown
forever), "doth not a margin do well to admonish the Reader to seek further, and
not to conclude or dogmatize upon this or that peremptorily?" (meaning, if we
seek, we will find, not remain perplexed), "variety of translations is
profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures" (meaning that we
might actually find out the sense, not be stuck with multiple translations,
because only one in the end would be right).
77: That is Matt the Aussie's interpretation of what the translators are saying. Matt pretends that he has been given "apostolic" authority to determine which revision of the unrevised King Jimmy is "the one," so this self-serving interpretation of Matt's should come as no surprise to anybody..
What the translators actually said: "We have not tied ourselves to a uniformity of phrasing, or to an identity of words, as some peradventure would wish that we had done. …Why should we be in bondage to them [words or syllables] if we may be free, use one precisely when we may use another no less fit, as commodiously? …We have … avoided the scrupulosity of the Puritans."
"Now, many godly men have accepted the KJB, and have seen that the margins are
not the best, but have said that the KJB as it stands is good. The issue has
been resolved."
77: The issue that is really no issue at all, except to the KJ Bible Bullies, has been resolved, but not the way Matt the Aussie would like us to believe. What the translators actually wrote about this "issue":
"If people would yet like to examine the margins, they can do so,
but they should not do so with the view of trying to prove the KJB wrong,
because it simply does not work that way."
77: It's not a matter of proving the KJV wrong, rather it's a matter of not buying Matt the Aussie's claims for the so-called "pure" Cambridge edition King Jimmy, or buying his make believe "apostolic" authority to prevaricate on the King Jimmy.
