[Will Kinney]

Re: The Pretext of the Preface
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm glad that Dr. Holland saw through the incorrect interpretation that Bible Relativists try to spin out of Miles Smith's comments in the preface:


From:
members.aol.com/DrTHollan...etter.html



>>The KJV translators said that any "mean" translation of Scripture can rightly be called the "word of God," and hence in that way, I call the KJV, the NKJV, the NASB, the NIV, etc., the "word of God."<<

You are taking their quote to mean any and all translations are God's word. They said any of their translations contained God's word, and was God's word. If they said what you took them to say, then all English translations (Protestant or Catholic; Conservative or Liberal; Evangelical or Cultic) would be the word of God. Thus even the NWT and the Cotton Patch Bible would be God's word.

I do not believe this was the view of the KJV translators. I believe they were referring to any English translation "set forth by men of our profession" was the word of God. The context of the Preface by Miles Smith shows the contrast between early English Protestant translations and the Roman Catholic Church. Translations like Tyndale's, Coverdale's, Matthew's, the Great Bible, Geneva's, Bishops' and such were translations "set forth by men of our profession" and thus, "containeth the Word of God, nay is the Word of God." Throughout the Preface there is a contrast between "our" and "their" translations, and between Protestant thought and Catholic thought. The translators of the AV saw their task as the perfecting of these early English translations. Not that theirs was one of many, and that any and all translations into English, no matter what their text type or who translated them, was God's word. Note what they wrote:

>>Yet for all that, as nothing is begun and perfected at the same time, and the later thoughts are thought to be the wiser: so, if we building upon their foundation that went before us, and being holpen by their labours, do endeavour to make that better which they left so good, no man, we are sure, hath cause to mislike us; they, we persuade ourselves, if they were alive, would thank us<<

>>And this is the Word of God, which we translate. . .(and all is sound for substance, in one or other of our editions, and the worst of ours far better than their authentic vulgar) the same will shine as gold more brightly, being rubbed and polished; also, if anything be halting, or superfluous, or not so agreeable to the original, the same may be corrected, and the truth set in place.<<

>>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.<<

>>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, . . . 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 endeavour, that our mark.<<

It does seem rather doubtful to me that the KJV translators would see every English translation we have today as the word of God. My understanding of the above quotes leads me to believe they felt theirs was the job of polishing what was done before them, of taking what was first given as good but not yet perfect, and perfecting those works. (end of Dr. Holland's quote from above web page)



Like Dr. Holland points out: Translations like Tyndale's, Coverdale's, Matthew's, the Great Bible, Geneva's, Bishops' and such were translations "set forth by men of our profession" and thus, "containeth the Word of God, nay is the Word of God." Throughout the Preface there is a contrast between "our" and "their" translations, and between Protestant thought and Catholic thought.


Like Miles Smith says in his preface: And this is the Word of God, which we translate. . .(and all is sound for substance, in one or other of our editions, and the worst of ours far better than their authentic vulgar)


I guess it's hard to class Miles Smith as a devout Bible Relativist as I believe by "their authenic vulgar" Miles Smith was refering to Jerome's Vulgate that Jerome researched at the library in Alexandria. It is a sobering thought that Jerome's vulgate as it existed in the 1611 era did not contain as many of the corrupt Vaticanus changes/omissions as the Bibles in the pew racks at some fundamental churches today (NIV and NASB). Hence to categorize Miles Smith as a devout Bible Relativist is a stretch and just another misinfo ploy.