Reasons why the 1611 KJB men believed

[bibleprotector]

Did the 1611 translators really doubt the exactness of their translation? Did they really think that their own work was not 100% the same as the original inspiration, though rendered in English?

Argument One:

The presence of marginal notes such as, at Luke 17:36, "This 36th verse is wanting in most of the Greek copies." does not mean that the translators were, in their final collective judgment, uncertain as to the text or translation of Scripture. If they were really uncertain, they would not have included that verse. Interestingly, they do not comment upon when they omit material found in the manuscript evidence, which indicates that while they made a show of uncertainty, they presented their work as to be judged on its merits. Telling the honest truth about the rareness of a reading is a lot different to saying that they thought it wasn’t Scripture.

As I shall explain yet again shortly, the presentation of the facts concerning the manuscript evidence is vastly different from actual doubt as to the content of Scripture.

Argument Two:

That whatever is in the margins is never an alternative to the Scripture, and that the 1611 men utalised their final collective judgment as to what stood as the text of Scripture, and what did not, thus being placed in the margins (i.e. centre column now).

Argument Three:

The utilisation of italics either to give a minority rendering, or to complete the sense in English, is not in any way an addition or subtraction of Scripture, nor is this method any way to doubt as to the very words of Scripture, but is an honest policy. That the italics read as part of the text is obvious.

Argument Four:

The existence of the word “but” in 1 John 2:23 in paranthetical marks is the completion of the sense of the original, and the second portion of that verse is found in minority attestation, however, that it is part of Scripture without doubt is obvious for the reason that the italic typeface in no way indicates anything different about Scripture itself. They are only a technical phenomena in both utalisations (minority readings or completion of the sense in English).

Argument Five:

Lack of regularisation in italic typeface in the printing of 1611 is primarily a sign of the haste of the printer, not the translators. However, since the use of italics in no way affects Scripture, nor changes the certainty of them in one degree in any place, the use of italics is better today than 1611. As for Scrivener and Norton, these men both were incorrect and ignorant on the proper use of the italics. (What standard was Scrivener comparing to when he attempt to so-called “correct” the italics? Since Norton assumes that the translators were wrong to begin with, any conclusion he comes up with is going to be equally flawed.)

Argument Six:

That true readings are found among the Alexandrian Family is not to be doubted, but all true readings were found and have been presented in the King James Bible. Of course, the Byzantine Family is a solid basis for true readings.

Argument Seven:

That the meanest of English Versions prior to 1611 was the Word of God.

“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”

This in no way casts doubt on the King James Bible, since it bettered, in the opinion of its own makers, all those Bibles referred to which came before them, and they do not give grounds that their own work could be improved. Therefore, they are indicating certainty as to their own work as the best and final form of the Word of God in English.

Argument Eight:

That the freedom of use of English words to best match the sense does not require an identity of phrasing of the same English word to the same original word in every place.

“For is the kingdom of God become words or syllables? Why should we be in bondage to them, if we may be free? use one precisely, when we may use another no less fit as commodiously?”

This does not mean that there is freedom in translating yet again and again, or freedom in editing the underlying text yet again and again. This was not even the subject they were addressing. Burgon said, “the plain fact being that the men of 1611 — above all, that William Tyndale 77 years before them — produced a work of real genius; seizing with generous warmth the meaning and intention of the sacred Writers, and perpetually varying the phrase, as they felt or fancied that Evangelists and Apostles would have varied it, had they had to express themselves in English” (Revision Revised, page 187).

Argument Nine:

That the information concerning other senses, which were not the exact Scripture, being shown in the margin (or information about other translations or readings) did not itself impinge upon the integrity of the text, translation or any thing of the Scripture which they wholly presented in the main text.

“Some peradventure would have no variety of senses to be set in the margin, lest the authority of the Scriptures for deciding of controversies by that show of uncertainty should somewhat be shaken. But we hold their judgment not to be so sound in this point.”

While there was a “show of uncertainty”, it was only an uncertainty to the unlearned. Those who thought that there must be a dishonest presentation that Bible preservation did not pass through a scattering, or that it did not require a gathering. On the other side, this does not allow for perpetuated doubt, uncertainty or any kind of actual shaking. Those who read this to mean that their is shakeableness regarding the certainty of the text and translation of the Scripture, and therefore, that the King James Bible is imperfect, are actually indicating that they are both unlearned and ignorant of God’s power. Sound judgment accepts that out of what seems to be a mass of possibilities and probabilities, that one final text can be presented, sense for sense identical to the originals, and given completely in English. The 1611 men did not indicate that their Scripture work that they presented was yet uncertain even in one place, but they did invite the Christian reader to check their work. And after about 400 years, the believers have always had consensus, both tacit and avowed, that the King James Bible is pure and perfect.

Argument Ten:

That there are places where the words or meaning of them were not known by all, yet the translators endeavoured to make things “complete as they should be”, for they studied and sought, so that they could finally “resolve” what would stand as Scripture and what was not, and that rather than present their final work as is, they did the honest thing and showed the other possibilities in various places, that is, the things which were rejected by the translators’ final collective judgment.

“it hath pleased God in his Divine Providence here and there to scatter words and sentences of that difficulty and doubtfulness, not in doctrinal points that concern salvation, (for in such it hath been vouched that the Scriptures are plain) but in matters of less moment, that fearfulness would better beseem us than confidence”

This by no means indicates that the difficulty or doubt is more, or more powerful than what study and the Holy Ghost could do. Rather than yet have the Scripture not fully discerned and known, they went through it, with fearfulness, that is, deference to God, and without the confidence of man: “Thus saith the LORD; Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the LORD.” (Jer. 17:5). This is not saying that men of God or the translators themselves remained or should yet be unlearned or ignorant, but that after putting confidence in God, that we may find our certainty there. This is exactly missing by those who reject the King James Bible, because they obviously have confidence in flesh, either in the power of corruption to remain, or in the power of flesh alone to just get the best that can be without ever achieving perfection (no perfect Bibles in either of those ways). But to defer to God is connected with getting a perfect Bible.

Argument Eleven:

That the translators consulted holistically the manuscript evidence, commentaries, etc., to find out the meaning of hard or rare original words.

“There be many words in the Scriptures which be never found there but once, (having neither brother nor neighbour, as the Hebrews speak) so that we cannot be holpen by conference of places.”

The translators’ study having been completed, they did indeed gain all the help by the conference of places, and thus gave a final, single correct Bible. No need to yet look at a variety to find the truth.

Argument Twelve:

That the marginal notes were supplied so that the reader might know the honest basis for the case of the technical aspects of the Scripture so presented, and be able to study himself to be satisfied.

“Now in such a case doth not a margin do well to admonish the Reader to seek further, and not to conclude or dogmatize upon this or that peremptorily?”

Never did the translators come against concluding or dogmatising, only against doing so prematurely and presumptuously. One cannot start from a false authority in such matters (e.g. the pope). However, those who reject the King James Bible only have a false authority, namely, a law which states that one cannot be correct, and that the corruption they see in the evidence, men and the world around them must be the overarching factor as how to approach the Word of God, rather than to rely upon the imminence, providence and perfect workings of the Almighty through His vessels, e.g. the Church. Seeking further and studying are commended, but not to doubt, but rather to come to understand the truth.

Argument Thirteen:

To claim infallibility for the presentation and rendering of the Scripture on a false basis or without knowledge is incredulous, and the judgment of men alone is insufficient. Thus, the papist has no grounds. Moreover, those who presume that God cannot give His Word, and question everything or anything, even to the uncertainty as to what it is at any given point, is nothing to do with the Spirit of God’s work: the Spirit of God has made loopholes for those who will not believe, so that those who will believe may always find the truth, and those who do not believe that God would have one perfect Word in one Bible may always, according to God’s supply, always reject the evidence.

“For as it is a fault of incredulity, to doubt of those things that are evident; so to determine of such things as the Spirit of God hath left (even in the judgment of the judicious) questionable, can be no less than presumption.”

The existence of many possibilities besides the King James Bible does not make the King James Bible false. Even the greatest judges in Christian history have been wrong, e.g. Luther or Burgon. This does not prohibit that Christians can be right, or that Christians are barred from access to the full counsel of God. The Holy Ghost has supplied the Scripture in such a way as it needs to be studied and believed, so that people who desire right judgment would actually have to act to find it. To presume something is true (as various modernists do who reject the King James Bible off hand) is as bad as claiming Papal Infallibility.

Argument Fourteen:

That the translators consulted a variety of sources, and formed their collective final judgment afterward was the most profitable method for finding and determine the true sense of the true Scripture which they subsequently presented.

“Therefore as St Augustine saith, that variety of translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures: so diversity of signification and sense in the margin, where the text is not so clear, must needs do good; yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded.”

We are not ourselves encouraged to begin from a position of doubt, and then to consult many places and many things in order to find truth, that is, we are not encouraged to do as the modern versions and their adherents do, but we are rather profited by the good work with the men of 1611 have already accomplished for us, in clearing up all things, and then where we might study such things (by their indicating margin notes) we ourselves may at any time confirm and agree with their judgment.

This does not mean that a Christian today has to go through every last margin note and thus satisfy himself. If he believes, and has but a general idea of the case, he has the sufficient equipment.

Argument Fifteen:

The policy of honesty of showing their judgment, i.e. the consensus of the collective of the translators’ final judgment, as to what are the final and settled readings of Scripture is manifest, and should be openly viewed, and at any time studied, and judged by the reader. It would be foolish to accept the inspiration of the 1611 translators, or, as many do, to regard them as subject to error, and that their work was liable to be false. That readings may be one or the other does not mean that, after the process of the translators’ work where they did select one over the other, that the one they chose was wrong. Every one of their choices can and should be vindicated by believers.

“They that are wise had rather have their judgments at liberty in differences of readings, than to be captivated to one, when it may be the other.”

There is not a continuing uncertainty, as the modern versions have, as to what is the Scripture and what is not. They have the belief that there cannot be a captivity to anything, in that it might yet be wrong. But this is not what the 1611 translators were indicating, they acted and spoke as if what they presented was the truth, which afterward would be found to be so. Thus, the captivity of God was not “forced” upon people, but as they willingly chose to captivate themselves to one reading and placing other material into the margin, so we today can yield to this, and captivate ourselves to the truth out of knowledge, and that by God.

Argument Sixteen:

That the translation into English was sense for sense accurate, despite whether different English words were used for the same original word in various places or vice versa. Thus, our ability to compare Scripture with Scripture is precise and accurate in English. (This could never be done before to this extent even in the original languages, because not one whole and total perfect extant complete BOOK existed at any time on Earth until 1611, and exactly presented in the Pure Cambridge Edition.)

"we have not tied ourselves to an uniformity of phrasing, or to an identity of words, as some peradventure would wish that we had done, because they observe, that some learned men somewhere have been as exact as they could that way.

This is no way deals with the inaccuracy of the King James Bible, but rather confirms it, as Burgon said, “If would really seem as if the Revisionists of 1611 had considered it a graceful achievement to vary the English phrase even on occasions where a marked identity of expression characterises the original Greek. When we find them turning ‘goodly apparel,’ (in S. James ii. 2,) into ‘gay clothing,’ (in ver. 3,) — we can but conjecture that they conceived themselves at liberty to act exactly as S. James himself would (possibly) have acted had he been writing English.” (Revision Revised, page 190).