After careful consideration of the Preface to the KJV (enclosed is an excerpt) do you really think the translators of the KJV had the same standard for certainty that KJV only advocates of today require? None of the original translators would affirm the KJV only position.

KJV Preface excerpt:

Now to the later we answere; that wee doe not deny, nay wee affirme and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set foorth by men of our profession (for wee have seene none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God. As the Kings Speech which hee uttered in Parliament, being translated into French, Dutch, Italian and Latine, is still the Kings Speech, though it be not interpreted by every Translator with the like grace, nor peradventure so fitly for phrase, nor so expresly for sence, every where. For it is confessed, that things are to take their denomination of the greater part; and a naturall man could say, Verùm ubi multa nitent in carmine, non ego paucis offendor maculis, &c. A man may be counted a vertuous man, though hee have made many slips in his life, (els, there were none vertuous, for in many things we offend all) also a comely man and lovely, though hee have some warts upon his hand, yea, not onely freakles upon his face, but all skarres. No cause therefore why the word translated should bee denied to be the word, or forbidden to be currant, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting foorth of it. For what ever was perfect under the Sunne, where Apostles or Apostolike men, that is, men indued with an extraordinary measure of Gods spirit, and priviledged with the priviledge of infallibilitie, had not their hand?

Originally Posted by againstheresies

After careful consideration of the Preface to the KJV (enclosed is an excerpt) do you really think the translators of the KJV had the same standard for certainty that KJV only advocates of today require? None of the original translators would affirm the KJV only position.

KJV Preface excerpt:

Now to the later we answere; that wee doe not deny, nay wee affirme and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set foorth by men of our profession (for wee have seene none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God. As the Kings Speech which hee uttered in Parliament, being translated into French, Dutch, Italian and Latine, is still the Kings Speech, though it be not interpreted by every Translator with the like grace, nor peradventure so fitly for phrase, nor so expresly for sence, every where. For it is confessed, that things are to take their denomination of the greater part; and a naturall man could say, Verùm ubi multa nitent in carmine, non ego paucis offendor maculis, &c. A man may be counted a vertuous man, though hee have made many slips in his life, (els, there were none vertuous, for in many things we offend all) also a comely man and lovely, though hee have some warts upon his hand, yea, not onely freakles upon his face, but all skarres. No cause therefore why the word translated should bee denied to be the word, or forbidden to be currant, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting foorth of it. For what ever was perfect under the Sunne, where Apostles or Apostolike men, that is, men indued with an extraordinary measure of Gods spirit, and priviledged with the priviledge of infallibilitie, had not their hand?

They clearly did not mean that a translation whose base text has purposefully removed verses is the complete word of God, as the continuing text of their preface shows, seeing that they compare a translation of the word of God to a translation of the king's speech. If a translator translating the king's speech were to leave out whole sentences of what the king said in his speech, would we not call it a translation of an abridgment of the king's speech rather than a translation of the whole of the king's speech? Even so, they themselves say "set foorth by men of our profession (for wee have seene none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet)." That is, a translation that is not of the complete word of God does not contain nor is the word of God, although a poor translation of the complete word of God can be said to be the word of God. How can you not see this? As TRO (Textus Receptus Only) I can accept their line of thinking here, and say that both the KJV and NKJV are the word of God in the sense in which they speak here. But the NIV does not contain Acts 8:37, and therefore it does not contain, nor is, the word of God. As they say of the Puritans, "wee have seene none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet" so also I say of the modern translations. We have not seem a complete translation of the Bible from them, because they refuse to translate the whole thing (with the exception of the NKJV).

My argument is not against a TR only advocate; it is against a KJV only advocate. I disagree with the TR only view, but I have great respect for those holding that position. There are a number of good arguments in support for the TR only viewpoint.

[bibleprotector]

There’s a kind of deception around that says that in order to get the translators’ “real” ideas, we have to read them in the print form of 1611. Why not accept the Translators’ Preface from a Cambridge Edition from the 1950s?

So here is the quote of the translators:

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: as the King’s speech which he uttered in Parliament, being translated into French, Dutch, Italian, and Latin, is still the King’s speech, though it be not interpreted by every translator with the like grace, nor peradventure so fitly for phrase, nor so expressly for sense, every where. For it is confessed, that things are to take their denomination of the greater part; and a natural man could say, Verum ubi multa nitent in carmine, non ego paucis offendor maculis, &c. A man may be counted a virtuous man, though he have made many slips in his life, (else there were none virtuous, for, In many things we offend all,) also a comely man and lovely, though he have some warts upon his hand; yea, not only freckles upon his face, but also scars. No cause therefore why the word translated should be denied to be the word, or forbidden to be current, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it. For whatever was perfect under the sun, where Apostles or apostolick men, that is, men endued with an extraordinary measure of God’s Spirit, and privileged with the privilege of infallibility, had not their hand? The Romanists therefore in refusing to hear, and daring to burn the word translated, did no less than despite the Spirit of grace, from whom originally it proceeded, and whose sense and meaning, as well as man’s weakness would enable, it did express. Judge by an example or two.

[bibleprotector]

The Roman Catholics argued against the King James Bible, saying that if the Bible was already given in English, why would they need to go again to correct it? If Tyndale or Geneva or whatever, why another new one?

And so it was to these that the translators (by the pen of Miles Smith) answered: “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”. He is talking about “our” works, meaning Protestant, saying that he had not seen theirs yet, meaning the Catholic Douay Old Testament (which appeared around the same time as the KJB did).

When he said “the very meanest”, he was referring generally to any historical Protestant English translation about which that accusation was made. He most certainly was not referring to modern versions. Yet this is what anti-KJB people read into it. How could the 1611 translators be said to be allowing modern versions when modern versions did not exist? Especially since that modern versions deny the Protestant tradition (the Textus Receptus), and embrace something of the Catholic, the very enemies of the 1611 translators!

When Smith wrote that such an English Version is the Word of God, this is quite correct. The Vulgate can be said to contain the Word of God. But because the King James Bible was designed to, and in reality did, supersede other English versions, and that now that English is the global language, we very well can hold to one Bible for the world, not because other versions were not Bibles, but because one Bible translation is superior to all. Providence has long worked and revealed one exact, extant form of the Word, which is superior to any single manuscript or printed edition of the original languages, and is supersucessionary to any Bible in the whole world. This is based on the principle of scattering and gathering, a process which God providentially used the King James Bible translators to finalise. Thus, while any old manuscript from the Traditional Text Family, or any Textus Receptus edition, or any Reformation English or foreign translation may be accepted and called “The Word of God” (or constituting some part thereof), non can be produced which is final in manifest form that is perfect in Canon, Version-Text and Translation altogether in one extant volume. Only the King James Bible can be so (which has lately been published without even so much as typographical errors).

Therefore, in all the time when there were improvements in English Bibles (the gathering process, and the refining process), it is true that “No cause therefore why the word translated should be denied to be the word”. Again, that any should not be “forbidden to be current”. Yet, we know that because of the succession, eventually later better versions superseded the former, and eventually by various factors under the Providence of God, the King James Bible alone became current, as it should be this day.

Moreover, “some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it”, that is, any one of the Early Protestant English Versions. But as far and text and translation, this was all improved, and finalised with the King James Bible. It would be incorrect to argue that the King James Bible also had “imperfections and blemishes” in its text and translation, for Smith was speaking only of the former translations, which they were avowedly doing, saying elsewhere that “the same will shine as gold more brightly, being rubbed and polished; also, if any thing be halting, or superfluous, or not so agreeable to the original, the same may be corrected, and the truth set in place”, and again, in the Dedication, “of many worthy men who went before us, there should be one more exact Translation of the holy Scriptures into the English Tongue”. Thus, they knew that the King James Bible was the truth, exactly correct and final.

[bibleprotector]

A modernist is able to find common ground (that is, common error) between the TRO position and himself because both have accepted incorrect premises in their view of the King James Bible and of what the 1611 translators said in their Preface to the Reader.

Most specifically, both do not view the King James Bible as having representative authority. They both judge the correctness of the King James Bible on other sources, usually, what they think the original text reads as, and what they think those original words should mean. In other words, it is denying the received tradition as Providentially given for an endless quest for truth that can never be attained.

This may easily be judged so, because no such person can produce a final text and translation because their very methodology and principles which supposedly are to lead to "the best" always fall short, since they have as a basis the law of the spirit of error (i.e. that perfection is impossible). This is essentially saying to God that He is too weak, and that He cannot (or even is forbidden to) have one Bible for the world. In other words, they can accept perfect truth in the past (inspiration), they can accept it in the future (the Millennium), they can accept it in Heaven, they can accept it in the Spirit (in the heart of a believer), but they cannot accept it in natural form extant and observable right now on the Earth today.

The proper view, I think, is to believe the Scripture itself, which many times implies, promises and indicates that there should be, and is manifest for believers, a pure and perfect Bible.

If the objection is brought up concerning the past, that is, the same words existed in scattered form in the past before 1611, and believers existed before 1611, the answer is simple: God’s outworking in this manner has been progressive to a final point, He said that the Word is purified seven times, which is a process. He promised that the Scripture would be there throughout Church history and to the Gentiles, it is true, but the promise of a pure, final and exact form has only been understood as a doctrine after 1611. (How many true doctrines were restored to the Church after the Reformation!)

The King James Bible is of the same line as any good version that anyone could have ever used, or other contemporary good versions that have been used, but in the end, one has remained, one has stood above all, one has been chosen by God, because its very nature is supersuccessionary to all. This does not invalidate anything else, rather it confirms the others, for it is the one final form that replaces them (even a contemporary TR-based Spanish translation).

My faith, BP, is not in a bar-b-qued Christ, but the crucified Christ. Deny all you can, but that will forever be an error in the KJV. Jesus did not go to hell when he died. Yes, I realize that hell in 1611 was an ambiguous term, including within it Abraham's bosom as well as eternal punishment. But now, the word hell is taken to pretty much exclusively refer to eternal punishment. Therefore, it is not wrong, but quite proper, to use the very word the apostles used, hades, when and where they used it. Jesus was not a Calvinist and did not tell the thief "My physical death is worthless unless I fry in hell for three days" (oh the blasphemy!) but rather "Today you will be with me in paradise" and so. Therefore, Jesus' body being dead and buried, his soul descended to hades, to Abraham's bosom, to paradise, and he took the thief with him. Amen.

[Luke]

Where do you think Paradise was?

Originally Posted by Luke

Where do you think Paradise was?

Jesus Himself says "as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth" (Mat 12:40) and Paul says "Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth?" (Eph 4:9) By "lower parts of the earth" and "heart of the earth" is clearly not meant the sepulchre which by no means could go down so deep to warrant such descriptions, but rather hades to which his soul descended is meant.

[Paladin54]

What's hades, tr?