Featured For Those Who Love The KJV

Well since you brought it up it deserves some time. You should if you are going to dogmatically state the exclusion of the notes from the Geneva Bible is a good attribute of the 1611 English Translation. You should take a look under the hood to see why. Your hero King James didn't want to offend the popes. Nor did he want to let the plain folk have an easy access commentary on the Scriptures because we all know that a good understandng of the Bible is dangerous, least they rise up and make unreasonable demands.

 

wonder what if they KJV was allowed to keep in the Geneva bible notes?

 

In the late 1600's, some editions of the KJV were printed with the Geneva Bible notes. Perhaps it was to try to win favor for the KJV or because a number of people still wanted them.

I have a reprint of a KJV printed in 1672 that has the Geneva Bible notes.

 

The main reason that King James who had used the Geneva Bible when he was king in Scotland objected to it when he became the king in England was because of notes that conflicted with his divine right of kings view.

McGrath observed: "The ultimate grounds for James's hostility toward the Geneva Bible was the challenge its marginal notes posed to his passionate belief in the doctrine of the 'divine right of kings'" (In the Beginning, p. 141). Bernard Levinson and Joshua Berman pointed out that the marginal notes in the Geneva Bible “contained some interpretations that were sympathetic to the right of the oppressed to resist a tyrant, and that raised questions about ‘the divine right of kings’” (KJB at 400, p. 4). In his introduction to the facsimile edition of the 1599 Geneva Bible, Michael Brown pointed out: "King James did not encourage a translation of the Bible in order to enlighten the common people: his sole intent was to deny them the marginal notes of the Geneva Bible" (p. i). Gustavus Paine also noted: "James's real reason for objecting to the Geneva Bible was rooted in his need to feel secure on his throne. Some of the marginal notes in the Geneva version had wording which disturbed him: they seemed to scoff at kings. If the Bible threatened him, it must be changed. Away with all marginal notes!" (Men Behind the KJV, p. 10). Vance maintained that “it was not the text of the Geneva Bible that bothered the king--it was the notes” (King James, His Bible, p. 21).


Pastor John Mincy affirmed: "King James saw in this new translation an opportunity to get rid of the influence of the Puritan Bible, the Geneva" (Williams, From the Mind of God, p. 131). Ward Allen maintained that King James "hoped to supplant the popularity of the Geneva Bible, the Puritan translation whose accuracy and readability made it a vast favorite with the people" (Coming of King James Gospels, p. 3). KJV-only advocate Robert Sargent acknowledged that King James "despised the Geneva Bible" (English Bible, p. 206). In his Dictionary of the Bible, John Brown (1722-1787) maintained that “King James heartily hated the Geneva translation” (p. 97). Kenneth Bradstreet confirmed that James “hated the Geneva Bible” (KJV in History, p. 87). Stephen Miller and Robert Huber affirmed that King James “hated the Geneva Bible” (The Bible, p. 178). In the introduction to his Condensed Commentary, Ingram Cobbin wrote: “King James bore it [Geneva Bible] an inveterate hatred on account of the notes” (p. ix). KJV defender Steven Houck also observed that James "greatly disliked the marginal notes of the Geneva Bible because he thought they encouraged disobedience to kings and therefore wanted a new translation to replace it" (KJV of the Bible, p. 3). Ronald Cammenga asserted that “the king objected to certain notes that he interpreted to deny the divine right of kings, notes that justified disobedience to the king under certain circumstances” (Protestant Reformed Theological Journal, Nov., 2011, p. 56). The Local Preachers’ Magazine maintained that “King James disliked the notes of the Geneva Bible, because they were unfriendly to the despotic policy on which he acted after ascending the throne of England” (March, 1853, p. 112). Alister McGrath wrote: "The king, according to the Geneva Bible, was accountable for his actions. It was not a view that James I cared for" (In the Beginning, p. 147). Do KJV-only advocates agree with King James's thinking?


What did those marginal notes say that upset King James I? At Daniel 6:22, the 1599 edition of the Geneva Bible has this marginal note: "For he did disobey the king's wicked commandment to obey God, and so did no injury to the king, who ought to command nothing whereby God should be dishonoured."
At Exodus 1:19, it has this note: "Their disobedience herein was lawful, but their dissembling evil." The note at Exodus 1:22 is as follows: "When tyrants can not prevail by craft, they burst forth into open rage." In his article in a modern-spelling edition of the 1599 Geneva Bible, Marshall Foster observed: “The marginal note in the Geneva Bible at Exodus 1:19 indicated that the Hebrew midwives were correct to disobey the Egyptian rulers. King James called such interpretations ‘seditious.‘ The tyrant knew that if the people could hold him accountable to God’s Word, his days as a king ruling by ‘Divine Right’ were numbered” (p. xxv).
At Matthew 2:19, the marginal note has the word tyrant [“Christ is brought up in Nazareth, after the death of the tyrant, by God’s providence”].
Its note at Matthew 10:28 stated: “Though tyrants be never so raging and cruel, yet we may not fear them.“

At Acts 12:2, its note again referred to tyrants [“It is an old fashion of tyrants to procure the favour of the wicked with the blood of the godly”].

McGrath maintained that "the Geneva notes regularly use the word 'tyrant' to refer to kings; the King James Bible never uses this word" (In the Beginning, p. 143). Long after King James’ death, these notes were in a few editions of the KJV, such as one in 1672. At the top of the page that has Isaiah 14, the 1560 edition of the Geneva Bible has this heading: “The fall of the tyrant.“ At the top of the page that has Ezekiel 32, the 1560 Geneva Bible has this heading: “The end of tyrants.“ The 1611 KJV did have the word “tyrant” in the Apocrypha [Wisdom of Solomon 12:14, 2 Maccabees 4:25, 7:27].


Perhaps it was not only the marginal notes that caused King James to dislike the Geneva Bible. If it was only the notes that bothered the king, why didn’t he have its text printed without those notes? Many people may be unaware of the fact that the earlier English Bibles sometimes had the word "tyrant" or the word “tyranny” in the text. At Isaiah 13:11b, the 1599 Geneva Bible read: "I will cause the arrogancy of the proud to cease and will cast down the pride of tyrants." The Geneva Bible at Job 6:23 stated: "And deliver me from the enemies' hand, or ransom me out of the hand of tyrants?" Again at Isaiah 49:25, it noted: "the prey of the tyrant shall be delivered." At Job 27:13, the Geneva Bible read: "This is the portion of a wicked man with God, and the heritage of tyrants, which they shall receive of the Almighty." Its rendering at the beginning of Job 3:17 stated: "The wicked have there ceased from their tyranny." The Geneva Bible also has the word "tyrant" or "tyrants" in other verses such as Job 15:20 and Psalm 54:3. The 1535 Coverdale's Bible and the 1540 edition of the Great Bible also used these same renderings in several verses. The Bishops’ Bible has “tyrants“ at Job 6:23, Job 15:20, Job 27:13, and Psalm 54:3 and “tyrant” at Isaiah 13:11 and 16:4. At 1 Timothy 1:13, Tyndale's, Coverdale's, Matthew's, and Great Bibles all had the word "tyrant." At James 2:6, Whittingham’s, the Geneva, and Bishops’ Bibles had “oppress you by tyranny” while the Great Bible has “execute tyranny upon you.”

Is it possible that the KJV translators agreed with the view of civil government held by King James? Did the KJV translators avoid using the word "tyrant" to keep from offending King James or were they perhaps instructed to remove it?

David Teems asserted that “James had seen to it that the word tyrant was absent from his Bible” (Majestie, p. 232). Melvyn Bragg claimed that the word ‘tyrant” was not “to be used” in the new Bible of King James (Book of Books, p. 42). Bragg referred to “the Bible of James from which the word ‘tyrant’ and the king-baiting, status-quo-testing comments in the Geneva Bible had been omitted” (p. 71). Knoppers suggested that “King James may well have envisioned the new translation as enhancing monarchial power” (Jeffrey, King James Bible, p. 38).

 

The early 17th century was just as much "this corrupt generation." King James himself was most likely unregenerate,and aside from his h_ _ o _ e_ual tendencies his filthy mouth surely demonstrated his corruptness.

You will never be convinced because you have thrown logic overboard. Why do you use a computer? Why not send a letter in the tried and true old way? Snail mail must be better;it's older. LOL!

Seriously,all languages change over time. Your speech is quite modern. It doesn't sound King Jamesy at all. The Lord honors the vernacular,as did Luther,Tyndale and countless others. You are one who discounts the vernacular so that your pet hobby can be made the centerpiece of your faith. You adhere to a manmade tradition.

"The truth" huh? No,you are not telling the truth.

I am not denying it at all. What I am saying is that the reason for it has nothing to do with most Bible-believing churches not using the KJV.

 

Greg, if your view is that ANY translation is perfect then you might just as easily be persuaded that winged Pegasus comes to take you to visit Zeus atop of Mount Olympus each night as you sleep.

There is not ONE SHRED of Bible evidence for such a belief.

There is not ONE OUNCE of logic that would lead to it.

There is absolutely no reason to believe it.

I think the only reasons ANY ONE ON EARTH has ever believed it is because #1 It makes them feel more secure thinking that it protects the inerrancy of the Scriptures (which it does not but to see that requires diving into a substantial lake of complexity which many are not willing or able to navigate) or #2 because they are "yes-men" to backwards fundy preachers.

 

Think its a case of misunderstanding that while the originals were fully inerrant, today we have an infallable Bible instead!

 

Spurgeon's love for the KJV

In his preface to the 1859 book The English Bible: History of the Translation of the Holy Scriptures into the English Tongue by Mrs. H. C. Conant, Charles Spurgeon noted: "And it is because I love the most Holy Word of God that I plead for faithful translation; and from my very love to the English version, because in the main it is so, I desire for it that its blemishes should be removed, and its faults corrected" (p. xi).

In his same preface, Spurgeon wrote: "I ask, from very love of this best of translations, that its obsolete words, its manifest mistranslations, and glaring indecencies should be removed" (p. xii).

Again in this preface, Spurgeon asserted: “It was a holy thing to translate the Scriptures into the mother tongue; he that shall effect a thorough revision of the present translation will deserve as high a meed of honour as the first translators. Despite the outcry of reverend doctors against any attempt at revision, it ought to be done, and must be done. The present version is not to be despised, but no candid person can be blind to its faults“ (pp. vii-viii).

Spurgeon maintained: “Multitudes of eminent divines and critics have borne their testimony to the faulty character of King Jame’s version: there must therefore be some need for a little correction” (pp. viii-ix). Spurgeon then gave several example quotations from several authors as evidence that supported his statement. In one example, Spurgeon favorably quoted Anthony Blackwall as saying concerning King James’s version: “Innumerable instances might be given of faulty translation of the divine original” (p. ix). Spurgeon also favorably quoted Richard Fuller as writing: “That our present English version has some defects is admitted on all hands, and by every denomination. That the Word of God ought to be purged of all defects in the translation which the people read,--this is also admitted” (p. x).

 

Gregory Perry Sr. Maybe you have some insight on this. In post #11 of this thread I made the observation that Brother Knox had written a book explaining difficult words found the in English Translation of 1611. Part of my post follows:

Notice how Brother Knox has college degrees and advanced learning and lots of books.

Then in post # 54 responding to Logos 1560 we read in part:

A question that comes to mind is how much education and how much study is too much? What are the warning signs that an individual has studied to the point of insanity? Is there a way to pursue advanced knowledge without going off the cliff? Are there some subjects that can cause insanity with less relative knowledge than others? If we go too far and learn too much and doth become insane, can we unlearn some stuff and regain thine sanity?

 

Question is whhere did the education of textual criticism and textual analysis get listed though on the bio?

 

Mr. Perry, Bro. Knox has a video on YouTube, with the SAME OLE KJVO JIVE, most of it derived from Dr. Wilkinson's goof-filled book....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6gi-edhOBc

Truth is, the KJVO myth has NO Scriptural support, while its MAN-MADE origin is obvious. Bro. Knox brings nothing new to the table-just the same ole garbage in a different dumpster.

The simple, undeniable,inescapable FACT is, God is NOT limited to the KJV in English, and it's WRONG to teach that He is.

 

Brother Perry,

When a man puts himself out there infront of the crowds as an individual who is an expert on something then there should be something in his personal background to add a little weight to the claim. Brother Knox does not seem to have such a background.

You seem imply that the reason Brother Knox is such a blessing is due to his KJVO stance. If you cannot find other men of God who are likewise a blessing who are not KJVO then may I suggest that you are not looking very hard?

 

Well on to page ten.

Thread closed