[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.

[PB1789]

..... "cuuzz whaaah wea haav he-aa isa faail-yurr to com mun e kate."...


Here Am I:--- Good point!

Bother Tim:--- Good Point.

Will Kenney:--- Yep! There are differences, in so many versions. It almost reminds me of that game sometimes played at Birthday parties, or family BBQ's--- called "Telephone". First person writes down a message on a paper, then whispers=passes the message on to the next person in the next chair. If you have between 5 to 10 people...by the time the last person repeats=tells what he/she hears to the message starter... it's almost as mixed up as the list you just showed us above.


Oh BTW--- This was a HUGE reason that I got more and more disgruntled with the many "New" and "Improved" versions: Since 98% of them use the Nestle-Aland Greek Texts to translate from... How can they come up with different readings ... After reading "Which Bible" by Fuller, I had the same thought: How many translations do we really need ? ,,, and these are NOT helping Christians and Christianity to do what it says in Matthew 28:19,20.

Vendetta Ride:---- Good Points--- { psst. whisper---> He does spin things "like a Jesuit"... But he probably isn't one because he said he takes a Bible to Church--- }


Brian T:---- I kinda like reading your Posts... but you really are either confused , or confusing... I'm not sure just which it is...Will Kinney made a good point/good question to you about the variations in the verses. It would be good if you looked at the list he put up on his Post above.

WORDS HAVE MEANINGS! No translator or editor or Publisher has the right to omit things that they don't like. I'm not talking about stuff such as the man with the Ark being spelled Noe or Noah, or Sonne being Son --- But when whole verses are chopped out and tossed in the waste basket by a "New" version...That is a serious change. A sane person can't say that all versions are OK and can be read at Church...That is the LAST place we need to confuse people at. The words from the Pulpit should be understood by the people in the Pews. The Apostle Paul talks about this concerning Soldiers hearing the wrong tune on the Bugle (each bugle call means something) and the battle being lost because of bad communications.

[MC1171611]

Something that I think needs to be addressed is the continual importance, placed by proponents of modern or multiple versions, on the "message" or "ideas" of Scripture above the words. Jesus never ONCE taught them meanings, He emphatically spoke WORDS to them.

Matt. 24:35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.

John 5:47 But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?

John 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

Matt. 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

(emphasis mine)

I don't see much in there about "messages" or "meanings," but I do see a lot talking about WORDS. Words convey a message, but God places the importance upon the WORDS, not the message.

John 6:68 Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.

(emphasis mine)

Hmm...the WORDS OF ETERNAL LIFE. Apparently we wouldn't even be saved without the WORDS, eh?

1Pet. 1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.

(emphasis mine)

Let's not put the emphasis on the wrong thing here, people. God magnified His WORD above His name, not His "message."

Originally Posted by MC1171611

Something that I think needs to be addressed is the continual importance, placed by proponents of modern or multiple versions, on the "message" or "ideas" of Scripture above the words. Jesus never ONCE taught them meanings, He emphatically spoke WORDS to them.

Thanks MC117 - can I wander in and say I appreciate you bringing this matter up. A while back I posted something similar on a "baptist" forum after getting hammered with this "message only" stuff. Below is what I posted though I feel you presented a better post - mine just had a different slant...

"A person posted somewhere a while back the quote below and it caught my attention.

“The form of the letters, the letters themselves, the set of letters called 'word' are not important. What is important is the message that God would have for us, preferably in a language that we understand.”

I vehemently disagree.

I’ve suspected the above for some time but wanted to capture it exactly before I wrote on this vital subject. No disrespect intended to this person for he appears to be a sincere brother in the Lord but this is a forum and once it is in writing figure it fair game to quote and respond to. But this person summed up the essence of the underlying concept on why modern versions have become so popular and….so dangerous. This view appears to be a modern and liberal view of the scriptures.

A message is made up of individual words.
The Lord is interested in his individual words – below can be found from running the references
* message – only 7 times
* words of Gods – 7 times
* my words – 60 times (though some here are not God’s words)
John 5:47 But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?
John 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words:
* words of the LORD – 18 times
* words – 568 (though many here are not God’s words – I understand this)
* words of God – 6 times
* words of the living God - 1 time

If your individual words are corrupt your message becomes corrupt. Examples already given but cast aside:
1. Is the love of money “the” or “a“ root of all evil? If the “the” is right then the basis of every evil is the love of money. If so then saints have to really examine their hearts. If it is just “a” then they have a way out.

2. Is it the “faith of Jesus Christ” or your “faith in Jesus Christ” that justifies? If it is ”of” then the saint is eternally safe. If it is “in” then once your faith goes your justification follows and most of “professing Christianity believe one can “lose it” – just like some of you believe on this baptistboard.

If just the message was the issue then there would be a lot more on the emphasis being the message in the scriptures. Just like if a saint could lose his salvation then Paul would a lot more time on the subject. But guess what – in the church epistles Paul spends no time on the saint losing salvation and yet there are folks on this baptistboard that believe they can lose their salvation. It appears their message is corrupted.

Once you say only the message is important you open up the word of God to anything. If you start questioning whether it was badgers skins or porpoise skins then where will this end? Why even discuss what words are right or wrong based upon your manuscripts if only the message is the most important anyway?"

I trust the above didn't side track the thread for I've enjoyed the "chatting".

God bless

Hi Here Am I,

The correct understanding might be possible, but an incorrect understanding (misunderstanding?) is also possible.
I'd rather not make my study of God's word any more difficult by choosing less clear readings of the Bible.

I agree with both those statements.

God bless,
Brian

Hi PB1789,

Brian T:---- I kinda like reading your Posts... but you really are either confused , or confusing... I'm not sure just which it is...

Where am I unclear? I can try to clarify.

Will Kinney made a good point/good question to you about the variations in the verses. It would be good if you looked at the list he put up on his Post above.

I have no doubt that Will Kinney just wants to argue, and no matter what I say about those verses, all he's looking for is more excuses to verbally attack me. So I'm not going to waste my time and effort. Basically, all I do for such comparisons is the same thing I do for similar comparisons when I use only the KJV, i.e. when two passages, which talk about the same thing, appear to have differences.

No translator or editor or Publisher has the right to omit things that they don't like.

Or insert things they do like.

The words from the Pulpit should be understood by the people in the Pews. The Apostle Paul talks about this concerning Soldiers hearing the wrong tune on the Bugle (each bugle call means something) and the battle being lost because of bad communications.

Hmmm, shouldn't those words be "sound" and "trumpet"? But I knew what you meant despite the slight variation in the words.

God bless,
Brian

Hi MC1171611 and avbunyan,

I am not at all saying the message is all that matters and the words do not. They both do, they are intertwined with each other: a message needs words to be conveyed, and words without a message is just meaningless ink on paper. However, they are not so tightly bound that a set of words can have only one specific meaning they convey, or that a meaning can have only one specific set of words to convey it.

MC1171611, you mention verses like “Matt. 24:35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away” and “1Pet. 1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.” What do you think these verses meant in 1600? Aren’t some of you saying that the word did in fact pass away, and did not abide forever, but was “scattered” and needed to be gathered/resurrected/purified? You see, I believe those verses are true, were true prior to 1611, and are true today with the same meaning they were true before 1611.

God bless,
Brian

[MC1171611]

Originally Posted by BrianT

MC1171611, you mention verses like “Matt. 24:35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away” and “1Pet. 1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.” What do you think these verses meant in 1600? Aren’t some of you saying that the word did in fact pass away, and did not abide forever, but was “scattered” and needed to be gathered/resurrected/purified? You see, I believe those verses are true, were true prior to 1611, and are true today with the same meaning they were true before 1611.

No, I believe that they are God's words, and He can do whatever the flip He wants to with them, and it's no ones' places to argue with what He can and can't do. If He wanted to preserve His words in goose feathers and use Mountain Gorillas to translate them, the that's HIS business. It is apparent, however, that He used some "godly" men to translate those words, after He used hundreds and thousands of men through history to keep those words safe. God could keep those promises through the ages of history just like He keeps them today, and it comes to the point where either someone has to accept His promises and realize that the King James Bible IS, without doubt or dissimulation, the culmination and final result of those promises, or rely on their own fallible, human opinions to decide what God "intended" us to "glean" from the "message" of Scripture. That fact stands, whether or not it is accepted by the majority of Christians.

The majority is never right, anyway.

Hi MC1171611,

it comes to the point where either someone has to accept His promises and realize that the King James Bible IS, without doubt or dissimulation, the culmination and final result of those promises, or rely on their own fallible, human opinions to decide what God "intended" us to "glean" from the "message" of Scripture. That fact stands, whether or not it is accepted by the majority of Christians.

My point is simple: the "realization that the King James Bible IS, without doubt or dissimulation, the culmination and final result of those promises" DOES ALSO "rely on their own fallible, human opinions". Your own fallible, human opinions (as opposed to real authority) led you to that realization. Yes, my opinion is also fallible and human, but it is consistent logically and across the church age, and does not require scripture to change meaning, new doctrine, or unauthoritative claims of what God may or may not have done. And I would oppose my opinion being put in an official "doctrinal statement", just as I oppose your opinion being put in one. Scripture does not say the KJV is the result of any promises of perfect purification/preservation/resurrection/whatever. Therefore it is extra-Biblical, unauthoritative and self-contradictory.

God bless,

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Originally Posted by Will Kinney

It was not until the 16th to 17th century that the church in the main finally settled on the 66 book Canon. It was only after the King James Bible came out and was well established among English speaking people that the church began to make their formal declarations concerning the inerrancy of Scripture. I and many other Christians believe that we do have a single Book that contains all of God's perfect and inerrant words. It is called the King James Bible.

And before the Reformation zeal and scholarship and faith and the advent of printing you would be hard-pressed to find any Bibles that were the full 66-book canon in one volume. And you would be hard-pressed to find full Bibles that were clearly can unequivocally the 66-book canon and nothing else. You would be, as Will points out, hard-pressed to find the doctrines of infallibility and inerrancy of Scripture clearly expressed.

God providentially used the Reformation Bible in many ways, doctrinally as well as in terms of Bilbiology, its development being in the hands of men seeking God. We saw as well as in the defeat of the Vulgate as God lifted up his word, and we had as well the clear rejection of extra-canonical books, not Scripture.

(Ironically, this Vulgate is even itself far superior to the modern version counter-reformation junque, the Greek NA and UBS and the "modern versions" now peddled by shills of the Bible Version Industrial Complex to the duped and unwary and deceived.)

Thus it is no surprise at all that we cannot point to one extant volume before the Reformation and say what we can say about the King James Bible .. in our hands, for the ploughman and my friends and family and even for the seminarian, is the full and perfect and true and pure word of God.

Also, the Reformation Bible scholarship was an 'uphill' synthesis (the principle of 'scattering and gathering' as Matthew points out) -- not devolution .. this superb analysis and scholarship corrected the small number of mistakes in the generally excellent Greek NT manuscript line. Where most Bibles had lost Acts 8:37, the Johannine Comma, "her purification" and a bit more. Men of faith worked under the anointing of God to give us the pure and perfect Bible.

One key to understanding Bible history is to understand the Reformation Bible .. study Erasmus, Stephanus and Beza, and the defenders like Whitaker and Turretin, learn a bit about the RCC rear-guard .. Cajetan and Catharinus and Bellamine. You will see the excellence of our Bible. Then in the English Bible you will see the complementary uphill action .. Tyndale through to Geneva to the King James Bible (with 4 intermediaries )

The King James Bible was simply the purity and excellence and majesty of this process .. brought to perfection through the providential hand of God.

Shalom,
Steven