- Joined
- Feb 4, 2012
- Messages
- 4,013
- Reaction score
- 10
- Points
- 38
The very meanest translation in English... is the Word of God
Miles Smith wrote this describing the Rheims NT 1582.
These translators were formerly Church of England professionals who were English Catholics that fled to the safety of Rheims, France. They were in fear of their lives as England went Protestant for the second time.
The backlash against the persecution of Roman Catholic Bloody Mary Tudor, during her short reign, was sever and Catholics fled England in droves because of this backlash, even those that had been educated at Oxford and Cambridge. These Catholics were native Englishmen that were well known to the KJV translators, there were brothers who were on each committee, John Rainolds who was on the KJV translation committee and his brother William who was one of the Rheims translators. Both were educated at Oxford where their uncle, Thomas Rainolds, was warden of Merton College and vice-chancellor of the university.
Quote from the place where the margin says; An answer to the imputations of our adversaries.
“Now to the later we answer; that we do not deny, nay we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession (for wee have seene none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet)...
{note the complete Douay-Rheims Bible was not published until 1610 making it too late for the KJV translators to use in their version, However the Rheims NT was published in 1582 and I have shown on other threads that Bilson and Bancroft quoted it extensively it in their books.}
{A complete Bishops' and Rheims NT was published by William Fulke at the request of Queen Elizabeth in 1589. There is no doubt that that NT was in great supply in London when the translators were doing their work.}
...containeth the word of God, nay is the word of God. As the Kings Speech which he uttered in Parliament, being translated into French, Dutch, Italian, and Latin, is still the Kings Speech, though it be not interpreted by every Translator with like grace, nor peradventure so fitly for phrase, nor so expressly for sense, everywhere. For it is confessed, that things are to take their denomination of the greater part; and a natural man could say, Verum ubimulta nitent in carmine, non ego paucis offendor maculis etc. A man may be counted a virtuous man, though he have made many slips in his life, (els, there were none virtuous, for in many things we offend all) also a comely man and lovely, though he have some warts upon his hand, yea, not only freckles upon his face, but also skarres. No cause therefore why the word translated should be denied to be the word, or forbidden to be current, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it.â€
Miles Smith has just described his view of the Rheims NT of 1582
Miles Smith wrote this describing the Rheims NT 1582.
These translators were formerly Church of England professionals who were English Catholics that fled to the safety of Rheims, France. They were in fear of their lives as England went Protestant for the second time.
The backlash against the persecution of Roman Catholic Bloody Mary Tudor, during her short reign, was sever and Catholics fled England in droves because of this backlash, even those that had been educated at Oxford and Cambridge. These Catholics were native Englishmen that were well known to the KJV translators, there were brothers who were on each committee, John Rainolds who was on the KJV translation committee and his brother William who was one of the Rheims translators. Both were educated at Oxford where their uncle, Thomas Rainolds, was warden of Merton College and vice-chancellor of the university.
Quote from the place where the margin says; An answer to the imputations of our adversaries.
“Now to the later we answer; that we do not deny, nay we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession (for wee have seene none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet)...
{note the complete Douay-Rheims Bible was not published until 1610 making it too late for the KJV translators to use in their version, However the Rheims NT was published in 1582 and I have shown on other threads that Bilson and Bancroft quoted it extensively it in their books.}
{A complete Bishops' and Rheims NT was published by William Fulke at the request of Queen Elizabeth in 1589. There is no doubt that that NT was in great supply in London when the translators were doing their work.}
...containeth the word of God, nay is the word of God. As the Kings Speech which he uttered in Parliament, being translated into French, Dutch, Italian, and Latin, is still the Kings Speech, though it be not interpreted by every Translator with like grace, nor peradventure so fitly for phrase, nor so expressly for sense, everywhere. For it is confessed, that things are to take their denomination of the greater part; and a natural man could say, Verum ubimulta nitent in carmine, non ego paucis offendor maculis etc. A man may be counted a virtuous man, though he have made many slips in his life, (els, there were none virtuous, for in many things we offend all) also a comely man and lovely, though he have some warts upon his hand, yea, not only freckles upon his face, but also skarres. No cause therefore why the word translated should be denied to be the word, or forbidden to be current, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it.â€
Miles Smith has just described his view of the Rheims NT of 1582