Bondage to words and syllables?

[bibleprotector]

The King James Bible translators said, “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?”

The modernist, in their misinterpretation of the translators, claim that the 1611 men were arguing against having one exact Bible, and were against the idea that the Word of God could be fixed.

But this is not what they were saying. In another place, they write concerning the making of the KJB, “there should be one more exact Translation of the holy Scriptures into the English Tongue”. This indicates the exactness and finality of their work.

Now, there were some that said that that they should tie themselves to always using the same English word for each original word. But the translators said, “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 ... for there be some words that be not of the same sense every where”.

Thus, when they asked, “For is the kingdom of God become words or syllables?” they were talking about superstitious devotion to the original languages by having the English words in slavery, rather than having their English expressing the very sense of the originals.

One Greek word can be translated a number of ways, and therefore the best English words should be used each time. Thus, “asked”, “desired”, “craved”, “begged” and “required” all come from one Greek word!

Dean Burgon wrote, “the plain fact being that the men of 1611 ... 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”.

Burgon explained, “It 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 St James ii. 2,) into ‘gay clothing,’ (in ver. 3,) — we can but conjecture that they conceived themselves at liberty to act exactly as St James himself would (possibly) have acted had he been writing English.”

Burgon suggested, “But then it speedily becomes evident that, at the bottom of all this, there existed in the minds of the Revisionists of 1611 a profound (shall we not rather say a prophetic?) consciousness, that the fate of the English Language itself was bound up with the fate of their Translation.”

It is right for us to seize upon the very jots and tittles in English. The translators’ words do not prohibit this, but rather, they admonish it, saying of God, “when he setteth his word before us, to read it”. What is set, but that it should be fixed. What is given, but that it should be held to. Therefore, the translators worked, “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.” If truth was “set”, when is it “unset”?