A_Son_of_God
Forum Reasoner - Nemesis of the Trolls
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2023
- Messages
- 340
- Reaction score
- 95
So, I was "quizzed" the other day by one of my chat friends, stating that I'd claimed that the King James Bible is translated from earlier English bibles".
My response was "Correct".
Sadly, I was accused of lying. So I went instead to an encyclopedia article, to show that it isn't me making it up, but is commonly accepted knowledge. Here is the article. I call this one Article B.
The article shows the same information, that it was indeed translated from other English versions, and named a handful of them.
The friend then stated that when it was written, it was done so by going back to the original languages. Then I was given a link. This is the link. This I call Article A.
So, I also discussed that Benjamin Wilson's Emphatic Diaglott, published in 1864, goes into some depth of an explanation in its preface. You can find the link here. And this one, I call Article C.
Based on that, here is my debate.
Was the King James Version written from other languages than English?
My answer is no.
Evidence from Article A
So, firstly, I don't like to be accused of lying. So breaking down the article I was given, I was expecting to find some form of defence, showing evidence of the opposite, that indeed the KJV had been translated from other languages. But I didn't find any. In fact, there was not one reference in the article to show that there was a reference to other languages.
Evidence from Article B
On the other hand, the work of Benjamin Wilson in his Emphatic Diaglott gives us this history of the King James Bible. It says this:
So, although Benjamin Wilson is using his vatican manuscript 1209 document in his work, he acknowledges the fact that "at the time", the King James Version of the Bible was perhaps the best that could be made.
He then goes on though, and states this a little later on:
So, you will note that in the timeframe of Benjamin Wilson writing his preface, he acknowledges that there were "nearly 700 Greek MSS" (manuscripts) that were known, but that only 8 were available for the translators of the "common version" - the KJV, to work from. And you'll notice the time difference, in comparison to when Jesus walked the earth. There were no manuscripts used from anywhere near that time period, but only from about 900 years or more later.
Evidence from Article C
The Encyclopedia Britannica article though showed a little more information, even hinting at references to Hebrew. So, was this a reference to going back to the original languages?
No...but that's only a no technically. Because it states this:
So, they didn't go back to the original language documents, but to COMMENTARIES on the original language words. Namely Jewish commentaries. And just as Article B demonstrated, Article C does the same, in showing that it was not written from going back to original works, but it was based firstly on the Bishop's Bible, and then compared with these other works. Here's what it says:
So, at the time, the King James Version of the Bible, released in 1611, was very good.
Nonetheless, it was not written by comparing it to the earlier manuscripts, but only commentaries on it.
What about you though? Do you have other information to show that the King James Version was written from the original languages?
My response was "Correct".
Sadly, I was accused of lying. So I went instead to an encyclopedia article, to show that it isn't me making it up, but is commonly accepted knowledge. Here is the article. I call this one Article B.
The article shows the same information, that it was indeed translated from other English versions, and named a handful of them.
The friend then stated that when it was written, it was done so by going back to the original languages. Then I was given a link. This is the link. This I call Article A.
So, I also discussed that Benjamin Wilson's Emphatic Diaglott, published in 1864, goes into some depth of an explanation in its preface. You can find the link here. And this one, I call Article C.
Based on that, here is my debate.
Was the King James Version written from other languages than English?
My answer is no.
Evidence from Article A
So, firstly, I don't like to be accused of lying. So breaking down the article I was given, I was expecting to find some form of defence, showing evidence of the opposite, that indeed the KJV had been translated from other languages. But I didn't find any. In fact, there was not one reference in the article to show that there was a reference to other languages.
Evidence from Article B
On the other hand, the work of Benjamin Wilson in his Emphatic Diaglott gives us this history of the King James Bible. It says this:
King James' Bible, or the Authorized Version, was published in 1611. In the year 1604, forty-seven persons learned in the languages, were appointed to revise the translation then in use. They were ordered to use the Bishops' Bible as the basis of the new version, and to alter it as little as the original would allow; but if the prior translations of Tyndale, Coverdale, Matthew, Cranmer or Whitchurch and the Geneva editors agreed better with the text, to adopt the same. This translation was perhaps the best that could be made at the time, and if it had not been published by kingly authority, it would not now be venerated by English and American protestants, as though it had come direct from God.
So, although Benjamin Wilson is using his vatican manuscript 1209 document in his work, he acknowledges the fact that "at the time", the King James Version of the Bible was perhaps the best that could be made.
He then goes on though, and states this a little later on:
It has now been convicted of containing over 20,000 errors. Nearly 700 Greek MSS. are now known, and some of them very ancient; whereas the translators of the common version had only the advantage of some 8 MSS., none of which were earlier than the tenth century.
So, you will note that in the timeframe of Benjamin Wilson writing his preface, he acknowledges that there were "nearly 700 Greek MSS" (manuscripts) that were known, but that only 8 were available for the translators of the "common version" - the KJV, to work from. And you'll notice the time difference, in comparison to when Jesus walked the earth. There were no manuscripts used from anywhere near that time period, but only from about 900 years or more later.
Evidence from Article C
The Encyclopedia Britannica article though showed a little more information, even hinting at references to Hebrew. So, was this a reference to going back to the original languages?
No...but that's only a no technically. Because it states this:
The translators used not only extant English-language translations, including the partial translation by William Tyndale (c. 1490–1536), but also Jewish commentaries to guide their work.
So, they didn't go back to the original language documents, but to COMMENTARIES on the original language words. Namely Jewish commentaries. And just as Article B demonstrated, Article C does the same, in showing that it was not written from going back to original works, but it was based firstly on the Bishop's Bible, and then compared with these other works. Here's what it says:
In 1604, soon after James’s coronation as king of England, a conference of churchmen requested that the English Bible be revised because existing translations “were corrupt and not answerable to the truth of the original.”
...An elaborate set of rules was contrived to curb individual proclivities and to ensure the translation’s scholarly and nonpartisan character. In contrast to earlier practice, the new version was to use vulgar forms of proper names (e.g., “Jonas” or “Jonah” for the Hebrew “Yonah”), in keeping with its aim to make the Scriptures popular and familiar.
...For this reason, the new version was more faithful to the original languages of the Bible and more scholarly than any of its predecessors. The impact of the original Hebrew upon the revisers was so pronounced that they seem to have made a conscious effort to imitate its rhythm and style in their translation of the Hebrew Scriptures. The literary style of the English New Testament actually turned out to be superior to that of its Greek original.
So, at the time, the King James Version of the Bible, released in 1611, was very good.
Nonetheless, it was not written by comparing it to the earlier manuscripts, but only commentaries on it.
What about you though? Do you have other information to show that the King James Version was written from the original languages?