37818
Well-Known Member
That is simply not true.
Remember Jesus' warning in John 8:44, . . . the devil . . . is a liar, and the father of it.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
College in Bible
- Thread starter KJB1611reader
- Start date
Remember Jesus' warning in John 8:44, . . . the devil . . . is a liar, and the father of it.
King James VI of Scotland and I of England was the head of the Church of England (AKA -Anglican)!
My statements are accurate and true, and they are in agreement with the actual historical facts.
Your opinion is incorrect, and it is contrary to the actual historical facts.
KJB1611reader
Active Member
Yes, its made by anglicans but the text refutes alot of anglican doctrine.
KJB1611reader
Active Member
I meant the text, not the men.
But THOSE some 60 men who translated WERE Anglican! and that TRANSLATION is called the KING JAMES BECAUSE King James I authorized (and copyrighted it)!!!
You make me think of that individual driving today. The School speed limit is 30 miles an hour. And she was going just under 30. BUT the sign (as well as the law) states the school speed limit of 30 mph is only valid on school days. (Today, of course being Sunday) She was going more than 15 mph UNDER the speed limit. In fact, its possible she could have gotten a ticket for going too slow! --- Even though the facts were there - she disregarded the sign.
Thats right - you are just like that woman - refusing to see what is clearly stated!
I dont think I need to say anything else until we get to post # 90!
Some of the English renderings of the 1611 KJV favor Anglican episcopal church government views more than the pre-1611 English Bibles do.
In the early 1600's, some believers complained of episcopal bias in the 1611 KJV.
Henry Dexter maintained that “its [KJV’s] translators acted under Episcopal bias, and is some passages modified earlier and more exact versions in its interest” (Hand-Book, p. 15). William Carpenter asserted: “In some cases, the translation has been influenced either by the desire of the translators to conform it to their royal master’s prejudices in favour of episcopacy, or, which is equally probable, to render it accordant with their own sentiments on this subject” (Guide to Practical Reading of the Bible, pp. 58-59). In the preface to his 1798 translation, Nathaniel Scarlett claimed that “as the translators were laid under restraint by the King, they were a little too compliant in favouring his particular notions; therefore, their translation is partial” (p. iii).
R. Mackenzie Beverley maintained that the makers of the KJV “had ecclesiastical motives and commands to attend to in their translation” (Church of England Examined, p. 127). Samuel Cox acknowledged that some renderings in the KJV “have been attributed to ecclesiastical bias” (Expositor, III, p. 301). Edward Jacob Drinkhouse referred to “the Episcopal bias” of the King James translators (History of Methodist Reform, p. 260). Benjamin Hanbury contended that certain renderings in the KJV makes it “sectarian and the symbol of a party” (Historical Memorials, footnote pp. 1-2). Silas Shepard maintained that the KJV “is decidedly sectarian” (British Millennial Harbinger, Vol. VIII, p. 74).
James Edmunds and T. S. Bell asserted that “King James’s servitors warped the Word of God to suit their employer or to suit their theological notions” (Discussion on Revision, p. 113). Edmunds and Bell refer to the KJV as “that sectarian version” (p. 119). Derek Wilson maintained that the translation by Bancroft’s team “had to circumvent any interpretation that might tend towards separatism” (People’s Book, p. 119). R. S. Sugirtharajah asserted that the KJV was seen as “episcopal” (Hamlin, KJB after 400, p. 160). John Beard contended: “Our present Bible wears a courtly dress, and utters the Church-of-Englandism of the day” (A Revised English Bible, pp. 146-147). Ross Purdy wrote: “There is an Episcopalian bias in the King James Bible” (I Will Have One Doctrine, p. 46). Purdy asserted: “the Anglican bias is still discernible” (p. 15). Purdy referred to “examples of obvious Anglican and authoritative bias” that promote “prelacy” (p. 57).
KJB1611reader
Active Member
Verses?
Yes! in the Book of Hezekiah chapter 16 verse 11 clearly states "Thou shall only use the King James Version"
KJB1611reader
Active Member
I had a very strange dream, some person was imaging into the text of 'English' was in the text of the Bible. Also, some modern business name. Very strange.
KJB1611reader
Active Member
Canst thou not change what the text said?
KJB1611reader
Active Member
Hezekiah isn't a book in the Bible.
KJB1611reader
Active Member
This isn't funny.
Wow, I did not know that!!!
One place where the 1611 KJV indicates bias for Episcopal church government is in Acts 14:23 where either the KJV translators, Richard Bancroft, Thomas Bilson, or another prelate omitted the words "by election" found in Tyndale's New Testament, Coverdale's Bible, Matthew's Bible, Great Bible, Taverner's Bible, Jugge’s New Testament, Whittingham’s New Testament, Geneva Bible, and Bishops' Bible ("ordained them elders by election").
Henry Dexter noted: “So Acts 14:23 retained in the English versions, until the hand of Episcopal authority struck it out, the recognition of the action of the membership of the churches in the choice of their elders” (Hand-Book, p. 15, footnote 1). In his 1648 sermon entitled “Truth and Love,“ Thomas Hill maintained that Acts 14:23 was one of the fourteen places altered “to make them speak the language of the Church of England” (Six Sermons, p. 24). In 1733, John Currie asserted: “It was not the fault of our translators that the Version of this verse was altered, but it was done by some prelates afterward” (Full Vindication, p. 65). James Lillie maintained that “this [Acts 14:23] is a key-text on the subject of church-government” (Bishops, p. 18). In an article entitled “Did King James and his translators tamper with the truth of God as delivered by William Tyndale” in the Baptist Magazine for 1871 as edited by W. G. Lewis, the author asserted: “This all-important text [Acts 14:23] was mutilated and corrupted by James’s revisers, by leaving out the two words ’by election;’ and by changing congregation into church; thus representing the act as exclusively that of Paul and Barnabas, and as Whitgift and Bancroft said they were successors of the Apostles, they turned the text into a justification of their lordship over the congregations, besides leading the people to believe that the congregations of the Apostles were the same as the churches of the bishops” (p. 582). This article maintained “that James and his hierarchy committed a foul crime against God and man in their daring forgery on this text [Acts 14:23]” (p. 583). This article connected the change with the Church of England’s doctrine of apostolic succession.
On the fourth page of the preface to his 1641 book, Edward Barber referred to “the great wrong done in putting out some Scripture, as in Acts 14:23, where election is left out, by which means people are kept from knowing” (Small Treatise, p. iv). Concerning Acts 14:23 in his 1647 book, William Bartlett wrote: “The original reads it otherwise than the Translation [the KJV]: the Translation reads it ordained, but the Greek word is cheirotoneesantes, that is, they chose elders by the lifting up of the hands of the people, which is different from ordination, as coronation is from the election of a king” (Ichnographia, p. 36). In his 1659 book, Baptist William Jeffery (1616-1693) referred to Acts 14:23 and then stated: “where the word election is left out in the new translation, but it is in the old, and cannot be denied to be in the Greek” (Whole Faith, p. 98).
KJB1611reader
Active Member
What is difference between a Puritan and a Anglican? What difference 'election' change? Both reformed?
The Puritans were still part of the state Church of England. The Puritans wanted to purify it or remove some doctrines and practices that the Church of England had kept from its mother church--the Roman Catholic Church.
KJB1611reader
Active Member
I see.
The use of "by election" at Acts 14:23 had nothing to do with what you may consider to be the Calvinist doctrine of election. Election at Acts 14:23 was indicating raising the hands or voting.
The text of the Latin N. T. translation by Erasmus has “cum suffragns” at Acts 14:23. In the Paraphrase on the Acts of the Apostles by Erasmus as translated by Robert Sider, Erasmus at Acts 14:23 maintained that “presbyters were chosen throughout by popular vote in each city” (p. 93). Sider also referred to “the annotation on 14:23 where Erasmus insists that we are to understand here a choice by vote” (p. 262, note 33). The Baptist Magazine for 1871 as edited by W. G. Lewis cited Henry Stephens, editor of a Greek-Latin Lexicon in 1572 that was consulted by the KJV translators, as giving the meaning of our text Acts 14:23 as “When they had created by suffrages” (pp. 583-584). In his translation of his Greek text into Latin, Theodore Beza included the words per suffragia at Acts 14:23. Theodore Beza (1519-1605) contended that "the Christians of Asia gave their votes by lifting up their hands (Acts 14:23, Cheirotoneo)" (The Christian Faith, p. 104). James Harrington (1611-1677) translated Beza’s Latin as “When they had created them elders by suffrages in every congregation” (Prerogative, Book Two, p. 77). The Baptist Magazine for 1871 translated Beza’s rendering of this verse as follows: “When they had created for them, by suffrages, presbyters in each of the churches” (p. 583). James Corcoran claimed that Beza translated into Latin as “Quum per suffragia creassent presbyteros, ‘having chosen presbyters by election’ (or votes)“ (American Catholic Quarterly Review, 1880, Vol. 5, p. 709). Clearly, Greek text editors Erasmus and Beza understood the meaning “suffrage” or “election” to be in their Greek texts at Acts 14:23.