Morgan Sorensen wrote:
Reply to "Logos1560" You ask, if I claim the KJV was a Revission of earlier English Bibles. No I do not claim that.
That is the "misinformation" modern sholasticism would like you to believe.
You ask, if I claim the KJV. was a revision of Earlier Bibles that WERE NOT based on the Hebrew masoretic and common Greek text.
No I do not. It is clear to me, that your information source is inaccurate, as the KJV was NOT based on the Tyndale Bible , but was based on the Masoretic Hebrew O.T. , and common Greek, "Byzantine" N.T. , carefully examined with the "Stephens Text".
While the KJV is a translation of the Hebrew O. T. and common Greek N. T., it is also a revision of the earlier English Bibles. It is actually more of a revision of the earlier English Bibles than it is an original, fresh, new translation since more than 50% of the KJV comes from those earlier English Bibles [Tyndale's to Bishops'].
Are you ignoring many documented historical facts?
The first rule given the KJV translators was as follows: "The ordinary Bible read in the Church, commonly called the Bishops' Bible, to be followed, and as little altered as the truth of the original will permit."
Rule 14 was: "These translations to be used where they agree better with the text than the Bishops' Bible: Tyndale's, Matthew's, Coverdale's, Whitchurch's [the printer of the 1539 Great Bible], Geneva."
In their preface to the 1611 KJV, the KJV translators themselves wrote: "Truly (good Christian reader) we never thought from the beginning, that we should need to make a new translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one, but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principal good one."
Even many KJV-only authors acknowledge the actual evidence that the KJV was a revision of earlier English Bibles.
KJV-only author David Cloud acknowledged that "it was the Bishops' Bible which was revised by the KJV translators" (For Love of the Bible,
p. 60). Paisley confirmed: "The Bishops' Bible was the immediate predecessor of the Authorized Version and the Authorized Version revised the same" (Plea
, p. 27). D. A. Waite wrote: "The Bishops' Bible (1568) used the Received Text" (Defending the KJB
, p. 48 ). In another book, Waite indicated that the Bishops' Bible was based on "the same Hebrew and Greek texts," and he added in the next sentence: "the same texts which underlie our King James Bible" (Central Seminary
, p. 111). Gail Riplinger maintained: "The previous Bishops' Bible (c1568-1611) was no less perfect, pure, and true than the KJV" (In Awe of thy Word
, p. 17). Riplinger wrote: "In the main, the Bishops' Bible is the same as all previous English Bibles" (In Awe, p. 567). She proposed that "the Bishops' Bible is the textual twin of the KJV" (p. 164). She observed: The KJV translators generally followed the grammatical elements and word order (syntax) of the Bishops' Bible. This was their foundation and they seldom varied from it" (p. 132). She also commented: "Both the Bishops' and the KJV are literal, word-for-word renderings of the Greek text and show all words, even if they seem repetitive" (p. 288).
Many scholars, including many KJV-only advocates, claim that 70 to 90% of Tyndale's is found in the KJV's New Testament. KJV-only author William Bradley acknowledged: "Without William Tyndale, there would be no King James Bible" (Purified Seven Times
, p. 59). William Byers observed: "Tyndale's translation was the first, in English, from the pure text that our King James comes from" (History of the KJB
, p. 97). James Sightler acknowledged that "Tyndale's work was the bedrock of the KJV of 1611" (Testimony Founded For Ever,
p. 12). KJV-only advocate Robert Sergent wrote: "Tyndale's translation greatly influenced the Authorized Version which retains some 80% of Tyndale's English text" (English Bible: Manuscript Evidence
, p. 193). KJV-only author Floyd Jones also asserted: "Over ninety percent of the language of the [KJV] New Testament is from Tyndale's translation" (Which Version
, p. 46). Likewise, Bill Bradley maintained that the KJV translators "retained more than ninety percent of the very words translated by William Tyndale in their finished product" (Purified Seven Times
, p. 121). Paisley affirmed: "When the new version [KJV] was published, it was abundantly demonstrated that William Tyndale was the real father of the work" (Plea for the Old Sword
, p. 29).