The KJV, strictly speaking, is not a translation but a revision. In fact, it is a revision of a revision (Bishop’s Bible) of a revision (Great Bible) of a revision (Matthew’s Bible) of a revision (Coverdale’s Bible) of Tyndale’s translation. “A great deal of praise, therefore, that is given to it belongs to its predecessors. For the idiom and vocabulary, Tyndale deserves the greatest credit; for the melody and harmony, Coverdale; for scholarship and accuracy, the Geneva version.”1
We pray that the Bible-Presbyterian Church will remain united worldwide, urging some of their leaders to turn from their arrogance and lust. We condemn and rebuke lecturers at Far Eastern Bible College for spreading erroneous information about verbal plenary preservation. +++ THIS BLOG HAS STRONG LANGUAGE. READER DISCRETION IS ADVICED +++
15.7.25
To make a good one better
Over the decades and even centuries, the process of review and revision has very likely eliminated gross translation errors from this line of Bibles. That is, if Tyndale made any errors, it would seem that they would have been corrected in the Coverdale, Matthew, Great, Geneva, Bishop’s, or King James Bible. How much more, then, should the RV, ASV, RSV, and ESV be perfected—or so one would think. 2
1. B. Metzger, The
Bible in Translation (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001), 76-77. D. Daniell
points out that 83 percent of the KJV is from Tyndale; The Bible in English: History and Influence (New Haven: Yale,
2003), 152.
2. Ray E. Clendenen and David K. Stabnow, HCSB - Bible Translation: Navigating the Horizons in Bible Translations (Nashville, TN: Holman Reference, 2013).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
To make a good one better
The KJV, strictly speaking, is not a translation but a revision. In fact, it is a revision of a revision (Bishop’s Bible) of a revision (Gre...
No comments:
Post a Comment