Translation Errors: Authorized Version of
1611 ... Authorized King
James Version?
Perhaps very few,
according to
learned men; But many, according to prating fools.
I find more evidence in favor of accuracy in the Authorized Version of
1611 (King James Version)
and subsequent KJV revisions to modernize the English of that era (as
is possible in translating) than evidence for
translation errors. I find the Authorized King James Version much more
accurate for Bible search than other versions. For even those deeming
it
necessary to report some translation errors in the KJV note errors,
ommissions, and additions made in RSV, NIV,
and other versions are much worse and more
plentiful than in the KJV
(perhaps as if done by more
the child of hell).
So after wearing out many versions from study, and studying out the version debate
to my own satisfaction, I conclude it is not only safe, but more accurate to use the
Authorized KJV as
a main study Bible, especially when studying the allegory aspect to
solve the allegoric mysteries of God.
The main thing is not the version, but being "led of the Spirit" to an
understanding of law vs
grace, right standing fast in grace, then also going on unto
perfection, which is oneness above twain law/grace. For even grace of
law/grace is still division and not peace; And right standing in grace
of law/grace is as stand in jeopardy of being lawed again, as happened
to churches of Galatia. Going on, to incorruptible grace above twain is
as "lay hold on eternal life", whereunto we are also called.
Yet since there's still much contention about the Authorized
Version of 1611: King James Version...
Since
Gideons add plural Psalms to Revelation... Since prophecy versions of
Bibles have
private interpretations... Since many modern perversions replace shew
with show, also ye with
you... And since there is general
confusion among seekers about which Bible version of many
is best for study; It seemed good to mention some clarity about
Translators of the Bible, and to speak
in
defense of their yet "one more
exact translation", a 'seventh' English Bible made from six good
(in the same allegoric manner that God saw "good" x 6, but notably "very good"
the 7th time in Genesis 1):
1. Tyndale's Bible - translated
from Hebrew and Greek; an
incomplete work
2. Coverdale's Bible - 1st
complete English Bible
3. Matthew's Bible - a mixture of
Tyndale's (completed by John Rogers) & Coverdale's
4. Cranmer's Great Bible - Roman
Catholic-ized Latin Vulgate
5. Geneva Bible -
Protestant-ized, Puritan-ized, Calvin-ized
6. Bishop's Bible - Church of
England-ized, yet used as the primary guide
7.
HOLY BIBLE - Authorized
Version of 1611 ... Authorized King James Version
Note: the Wycliffe
English Bible of 1384 was not included among six good; Perhaps because
it was translated from
Latin instead of Hebrew and Greek, and contained 'dangerous helps'.
In response to those claiming the English of KJV is outdated, I find
this comment most appropriate:
“...the English of the King James Version is
not the English of the early 17th century. To be exact, it is not a
type of English that was ever spoken anywhere. IT IS BIBLICAL ENGLISH,
which was not used on ordinary occasions even by the translators who
produced the King James Version. As H. Wheeler Robinson (1940) pointed
out, one need only compare the preface written by the translators with
the text of their translation to feel the difference in style. And the
observations of W.A. Irwin (1952) are to the same purport. The King
James Version, he reminds us, owes its merit, not to 17th-century
English--which was very different--but to its faithful translation of
the original. ITS STYLE IS THAT OF
THE HEBREW AND OF THE NEW TESTAMENT GREEK. Even in their use of thee
and thou
the translators were not following 17th-century English usage but
biblical usage, for at the time these translators were doing their work
these singular forms had already been replaced by the plural you in
polite conversation” (Edward Hills, The
King James Version Defended,
p. 218).
Upon reading the Epistle
Dedicatory of Translators of the Bible I found in a pre 1900 Holy Bible,
it seems Bible Translators were both maligned on the one side and
traduced on the other side by popish persons and self conceited
brethren (Roman Catholics and Protestants); So perhaps one goal in
making "yet one more exact translation", besides the goal of making God's holy truth
more known, was to make a Bible that was more universal: neither Roman
Catholic nor Protestant. However it wouldn't surprise me if both Roman
Catholics and Protestants later on printed their own versions of the
Authorized Version of 1611, and flavored it with their own (divisional)
doctrines. For in checking the mandate of Oxford University Press,
which printed the original Authorized Version of 1611, it seems the
mandate was to make money for the university by printing whatever
people paid to have printed ... as if leaving the door open for other
versions of KJV to be printed.
Upon reading a summary of Guidelines
for Bible Translators I find due diligence for accuracy in the
translation process of having more than a dozen scrutinizing reviews by
members and companies of translators (learned men), but also finally a
review and unanimous agreement of the general committee of revision;
Along with general openness to
scrutiny and a kingdom wide request for assistance and suggestions
(insights) among all the principla learned men in
the new kingdom (England, Wales, Scotland, France, Ireland) during the
translation process, especially among all the bishops and
language specialists in the kingdom. This manner of openness and
translation scrutiny seemed to leave little room for any errors,
doubts, or erroneous doctrines to escape scrutiny, especially among
kingly appointed 'learned men' who unanimously agreed 'it is
preposterous
order to teach first and learn afterward', which is noted in their
preface called Translators to
the Reader. As such I have included such a saying of Translators of
the Bible in a collection of OneLiners.
Guidline: translators to make the version
intelligible without those dangerous helps
Rather than perceiving the work of Bible Translators to be a
labour in vain, resulting in translation errors of vain religion, I see
the
work of Translators of the Bible as a work of 'more exact' grace,
more
"merciful" mercy, and more peaceful peace: which God is [the author]
of, purposed to lessen confusion, by lessen translation errors, and
thereby lessen the possibility
of miss-understanding among us all. It is my view that Bible
Translators (learned
men all) used the most appopriate words, from among several options of
language translation, to
maintain the biblical integrity of the allegoric mystery throughout,
and to help
(not hinder) readers to get
it: understanding: grace glory, by avoiding what was called
'dangerous helps', and letting the scriptures interpret the scriptures
by being
"led of the Spirit"
(Spirit of Grace: Spirit of Truth) rather than being Ghost driven to
miss-understanding and division
(rather than unity) by such 'dangerous
helps', which seemed to occur in some of the previous translations.
Perhaps modern versions (oft called perversions) bring back the
dangerous helps, rather than making the version intelligible without
those dangerous helps.
After much actual Bible study, especially on the allegory aspect of
plural and contradictory
Scriptures from Genesis (God called the
light Day) to
Revelation (his voice as the sound of many waters) ,
I found the Holy Bible (Authorized KJV) best of many
versions I've worn out from study.
Based on study to get it: "understanding" = "grace" glory (Proverb
4) , it's my insight that Translators of the Bible
actually used the most
appropriate words, of several options, in order to help
(not hinder) our understanding of the allegoric mystery contained in
the Authorized Version of 1611. For a most appropriate
choice of words was not only carefully
selected but also scrutinized
by all King appointed Bible Translators who began and finished the
translation
process. Such as also based on the input,
assistance, and scrutiny of all principal learned men in
the kingdom of Great Britain (England, Scotland, Wales) ,
France and
Ireland. So it was done such that: 'our
said
intended translation may have the help and furtherance of all our
principal learned men within this our kingdom', perhaps even
Shakespeare.
To be (grace) or not to be (law), that is the question
I wouldn't be surprised if Shakespeare
had some input,
being an allegoric writer who was contemporary with Bible Translators,
who allegorically summed up the entire
Bible in just one sentence: 'to be ( grace) or
not to be ( law) ,
that is the question'. Allegorically it's also the quest-i-on: of such
Grace + Law which Jesus made Grace or Law: With or Against ...
Justified or Condemned (Matthew 12:30-37), let it be Grace only, With
only, Justified only. For Shakespeare was not only contemporary with,
lived
in the same era and area as Bible Translators;
But also
had
the same royal favor of King James, who not only frequented the house
of God regularly, but surrounded himself with principal learned men to
have 'daily religious discourse' at home and other gathering places (perhaps
even the tavern, where thinking and
speaking were allowed). It's noteworthy that a Bible was found
in
Shakespeare's attic, and it was not common to have one in his time; And
that the works of Shakespeare have survived, and been studied, for as
long as the King James Version of the Bible.
In the preface
prefixed to the
translation, Translators of the Bible say 'it is a preposterous order
to teach first and learn after'. Paul
The Apostle concurs, saying things
written aforetime were written "for our learning" (Romans
15:4) , and "I would not have you ignorant brethren" is a
general theme flowing throughout his Pauline Epistles,
wherein Paul prays that all people might get
understanding (in accordance with Solomon's "with all thy getting, get
understanding", "grace glory" (Proverbs 4).
Converted Peter also concurs, noting the first of two worlds
he allegorically compares perished due to "willing
ignorance"; So Peter says not to be ignorant of this: 1000 years [is] as 1 day "and" 1 day
[is] as 1000 years (2Peter 3) . Hence six days in
Genesis 1 are "as" 6000 years (6 yesterdays in Psalms 90:4) and
the 1000 years in Revelation 20 are "as" 1 day called Easter in Acts 12; A
1000 year day Peter (called "Satan") spent chained in a Roman
jail... in which things are an "allegory": Galatians 4 and
"mystery"(noted 20 times). So it's allegoric mystery, requiring give more earnest heed
to the allegory clues given to solve the allegoric mystery and thereby
"escape" wrath to
come; But not by any rapture theories,
rather by replacing miss-understanding with understanding, and by enduring unto the end written,
which is the end of law: sin and death,
not the end of grace mercy peace. For God's "eternal" grace mercy peace
have no beginning nor end. Rather only what began can end.
In their Epistle
Dedicatory Bible Translators
also defend their goal as "make God's holy Truth to be yet more
known"; And as "learned men" rather than "Popish Persons" and
"self conceited Brethren" who "maligned" and "traduced" on both sides
of a blame
game. As such, their translation is
neither Roman Catholic nor Protestant, but the work of united and
learned brethren who also unanimously wished three wishes: "Grace,
Mercy,
and Peace" for King and kingdom. As if SHOUTING us a hint, they
also noted such a three in one perfect wish is God granted "through
JESUS CHRIST our Lord". For Christ Jesus is mirrorly
the
reverse of Jesus Christ, as am I is mirrorly reverse of I am in
Paul's allegoric "when I am (grace) weak, then am I (law) strong".
In conclusion, I find little evidence for translation errors. Rather I
find evidence such like who assume and/or report translation errors
have perhaps been duped by the spirit
of error also
called "anti-christ" (anti-"the
end of the law": Romans 10:4) in
1John4. For such like perceive them-selves made free via "another law"
mentioned in Romans 7, which Paul calls "the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus" in
Romans 8:2 law law; Which is
"the second" law in Matthew 22:36-40 law law, which
is notably "like unto the first", which is "law": "sin and death", a
dead end. My Holy Bible (Authorized Version of 1611 ... Authorized KJV)
has no dead end for you all (you and all the kingdom of God within you)
since the last
trump
has no mention of
law imputed sin and death.
The grace
of our Lord Jesus Christ with
you
all. Amen.
|
