Question for James White, Which KJB?
"A Reasoned Response to the James White "interview" on his Dividing Line Radio Program" I would like to respond to the points ...
|
| 3963 Views |
Post a Comment
Oops!
The words you entered did not match the given text. Please try again.
1 Comment
I cannot express how much I am enjoying this speaker`s series of talks. James White is a nuissance and even, from what I have heard and read, an impostor (due to a phony degree credential). He writes and speaks as a propagandist, not for the sake of clarity and truth. I would add to what you say about the sources of the tiny genuine divergences which occur in editions of the A.V. (K.J.V.) over the years that, yes, much of it has to do with the printers, of course, but also to do with the manuscript and other sources for the text of the A.V. King James' translators, who had an unique way of working which shows in the source materials of their Bible version. This matter is too complicated to explain here, but for those interested, good accounts of this appear in recent writings by David Norton, who edited the "New Cambridge Paragraph Bible, with the Apocrypha, King James Version" (Cambridge Univ. Pr., 2005). His preface to that important text of the A.V. Bible has an "Editor's Introduction" which explains a little of this, but it is in his book about the A.V., of which the short title is "The King James Bible, a Short History" (Cambridge, 2011) that he gives the full story. Contrary to what some have said, much of the source material for the A.V. Bible has survived and Norton inventories it for readers of his book. When one realises the nature of the A.V. source material and how the original printers had to cope with it, it is a marvel that they were able at all to set the type at all so well as they did; those artisans were masters of their arduously difficult trade! It is to these source materials that the various official resettings (a better term than editions) of the translators' text referred and the uses of which account for the slight differences in A.V. texts in the 17th and 18th centuries, not "corrections" to what the translators did and obviously intended. This is a fascinating subject for any A.V. Bible believer to explore! I adhere to the 1769 text, but I do find the New Cambridge Paragrah Bible very helpful in studying the A.V. as the Bible of ultimate resort, as it is for me. David Norton is not a real Bible-believer, per se, but he has done fine work for those who are A.V.-exclusive Bible believers.
Oops!
Oops, you forgot something.