CLE Forum
General Category => Bible Discussion => Topic started by: Christopher_Belflower on August 21, 2018, 05:56:26 AM
-
In an effort to sanctify myself from my false teachings, please allow me to present this unedited copy of the Preface included with the 1611 King James Version.
And in accordance with CLE protocol of refraining from including interpretative explanations or personal observations along with subject matter being presented, I would just like to highlight a few points raised by the King James Version Translators:
http://www.bibleprotector.com/The_Translators_to_the_Reader.pdf
I posted something, but it continued to get cutoff, here's the source:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zM-M09e9dLRT97sLVaECEanB1ZYqyZtvv5DnWjowJCE/edit?usp=sharing
-
Glad you posted that, Chris. I have a 1611 KJV Bible but would need a magnifying glass to read that part of it...
-
I read most of this last night (until I fell asleep in the armchair) and then just finished it now at lunchtime. That was a very good read and I too have to admit that I had never read the Preface included with the 1611 King James Version.
What would be notable concerning a part of the subject of the preface would be that it only applies to the Biblical work that had been done up until the publishing of the KJV and could not be applied to "translations" after the KJV such as the NIV or the NASB as that would open the door wide to all kinds of nonsense and heresy.
-
I can agree with that;
The Preface certainly gives a glimpse into the heart of the Translators and from the sense of the Preface, you can conclude the humility and privilege they felt to be a part of the Authorized Version. I did not gather that they would imply "their" translation is perfect. They likened the Translation to a piece of polished gold, as opposed to the previous versions and translative works that were by comparison dirty and unrefined, and yet were still held as the "Word of God."
Regarding the modern translations, developed from the Wescott and Hort Greek text, that did not arise until almost 300 years after the King James Translators had completed their translation. The modern Greek perversion was produced and presented in 1881, so therefore Christians up until that time did not use it and that's where the issue arises. If we accept Wescott and Hort's Greek as the pure Word, then Christians did not have the pure Word of God (in the New Testament) for nearly 1900 years.
By calling the Greek Text they used (Textus Receptus) as the golden pipes, no doubt they (KJV Translators) would reject modern bibles because of the source.
Matthew 7:17
Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
Not withstanding, I hold the position as I believe most of you do, that The King James Version is the simplest, purest, most undefiled translation for the English speaker. If your native tongue is English, and your goal is to sanctify yourself from leaven, then you need to be reading the King James Version.
Where we may differ, I believe if other languages, ie. Filipino, Chinese, Russian, etc. are to also have the simplest, purest, most undefiled translation for their tongue, they should be translating their Bibles from the Textus Receptus (golden pipes) identified by the King James Translators.
I included this site in the link, but here is is again, this is a very interesting website, to learn more about how we hold our King James Bible today:
http://textusreceptusbibles.com
There is a link called "The Alexandrian Text" where you can read "How Wescott and Hort rewrote history to fool the scholars" and other great reads.
-
Chris, I am from Russia and read in both English and Russian. What can you say about Russian translations? Only folks in English speaking countries read KJV, others read translations in Vietnamese, Polish, Norwegian, Japanese, Arabic, etc. Can we say that they read something that is not in preserved translations since they are not authorized KJV?
-
Belflower was rebuked for teaching false doctrines and he would not repent of it, and he has departed from this site. You'll notice that the last post made was Aug 24, about five months ago.
-
Chris, I am from Russia and read in both English and Russian. What can you say about Russian translations? Only folks in English speaking countries read KJV, others read translations in Vietnamese, Polish, Norwegian, Japanese, Arabic, etc. Can we say that they read something that is not in preserved translations since they are not authorized KJV?
Jason, I can't answer your question but I can tell you about something I learned. I was listening to a sermon by Sam Adams and he referenced an article by Dr. John Hinton. The article was titled "Ridiculous KJV Bible Correction:Who is Yahweh?". I wanted to share the article with my prison pen pals but first sought permission from Dr. Hinton. In the process I learned Dr. Hinton is heavily involved in making KJV equivalent Bibles available in various languages. Dr. Hinton's email address is posted on line. If you do an online search "Who is Yahweh? - Ridiculous KJV Bible Corrections" you should be able to get his e-mail address.