Baptists’ Bible Use

[Rippon]

Tyndale was not the only one who died at the hands of Catholics in England.

Repeating silly things doesn't make them factual.

Your original point was that several people died for the KJV. That's a falsehood.

 

[church mouse guy]

Repeating silly things doesn't make them factual.

Your original point was that several people died for the KJV. That's a falsehood.

No, I merely stated that every page was soaked in blood.

 

[Rob_BW]

No, I merely stated that every page was soaked in blood.

Same with the NKVJ?

 

[church mouse guy]

Same with the NKVJ?

What I am trying to say is that the KJV is the culmination of the English Reformation and it is roughly half Tyndale, which is remarkable. If you don't like it, that is okay, but to say that it is childish or silly is dismissive of the price paid starting with the Lollards in England and is dismissive of Tyndale, as you know. Catholicism extracted a horrible price 500 years ago.

 

[Rob_BW]

What I am trying to say is that the KJV is the culmination of the English Reformation and it is roughly half Tyndale, which is remarkable. If you don't like it, that is okay, but to say that it is childish or silly is dismissive of the price paid starting with the Lollards in England and is dismissive of Tyndale, as you know. Catholicism extracted a horrible price 500 years ago.

I don’t recall using the words childish or silly.

And if I see anything as dismissive, it's assigning the same honor to men who labored under state directive while most of them held well paying offices from the state church with men who were hunted down and martyred. That's why I mentioned the NKJV, but the question could be asked about the RV or ASV, too.

 

[Logos1560]

What I am trying to say is that the KJV is the culmination of the English Reformation .

I merely stated that every page was soaked in blood.

Making a claim is empty if you do not back it up.

Can you demonstrate that your claims are true?

In some places, the Church of England's KJV may be considered a step backwards from a consistent, true reformation away from Roman Catholicism. The Puritans wanted a more complete reformation of the Church of England while the making of the KJV was controlled by those opposed to this purifying of the Church of England from some Roman Catholic traditions and practices.

The KJV did not keep or follow some of Tyndale's most important distinctive renderings.

In some places, the KJV could be regarded a step backwards from Tyndale's Reformation views.

 

[church mouse guy]

Making a claim is empty if you do not back it up.

Can you demonstrate that your claims are true?

In some places, the Church of England's KJV may be considered a step backwards from a consistent, true reformation away from Roman Catholicism. The Puritans wanted a more complete reformation of the Church of England while the making of the KJV was controlled by those opposed to this purifying of the Church of England from some Roman Catholic traditions and practices.

The KJV did not keep or follow some of Tyndale's most important distinctive renderings.

In some places, the KJV could be regarded a step backwards from Tyndale's Reformation views.

So you don't like it. Don't use it! If you think that Catholics did not execute English Ptotestants in numbers, you are mistaken.

 

[church mouse guy]

I don’t recall using the words childish or silly.

And if I see anything as dismissive, it's assigning the same honor to men who labored under state directive while most of them held well paying offices from the state church with men who were hunted down and martyred. That's why I mentioned the NKJV, but the question could be asked about the RV or ASV, too.

You want to reduce it to an absurdity for some reason. What is your reason?

As you well know, Puritans were invited to Hampton to speak to King James and were represented on the translation group.

 

[Logos1560]

If you think that Catholics did not execute English Ptotestants in numbers, you are mistaken.

I made no such claim.

Instead of being persecuted, a number of the Church of England makers of the KJV were involved in extreme persecution of people for their faith. They followed the example of Roman Catholics in some of their practice of persecution.

The Church of England's High Court Commission of which several KJV translators were members is compared to what Roman Catholics did.

 

[Rob_BW]

You want to reduce it to an absurdity for some reason. What is your reason?

As you well know, Puritans were invited to Hampton to speak to King James and were represented on the translation group.

What am I reducing to an absurdity?

 

[church mouse guy]

I don’t recall using the words childish or sillier or
And if I see anything as dismissive, it's assigning the same honor to men who labored under st87iate directive gggggwhile most of them held well paying offices from the state church with men who were hunted down and martyred. That's why I mentioned the NKJV, but the question could be asked about the RV or ASV, too.

You want to reduce it to an absurdity.

I made no such claim.

Instead of being persecuted, a number of the Church of England makers of the KJV were involved in extreme persecution of people for their faith. They followed the example of Roman Catholics in some of their practice of persecution.

The Church of England's High Court Commission of which several KJV translators were members is compared to what Roman Catholics did.

Oh, Brother.

 

[church mouse guy]

What am I reducing to an absurdity?

So now are you disavowing your posts? The KJV was the culmination of the English Reformation and an attempt to end the bloodshed and establish peace. By number of books, it is about half Tyndale, which is remarkable and shows the genius of the man.

If you are #NeverKJV, that is fine, but you have no right to say that the English did not seal their testimony with their blood.

 

[Logos1560]

As you well know, Puritans were invited to Hampton to speak to King James and were represented on the translation group.

Which of the Church of England makers of the KJV were actively advocating Puritanism during the time of the making of the KJV?

Gustavus Paine observed that by 1606 "all the Puritan translators had conformed enough to escape being banished or direly punished in other ways" (Men Behind the KJV, p. 97).

Archbishop Richard Bancroft was well known for his dedication to making everyone conform to the views of the state church. John Tulloch maintained that Bancroft “proved more of an ecclesiastical dictator than anything else. Persecution was his active weapon” (English Puritanism, p. 35).

Benjamin Brook observed: "Archbishop Bancroft incessantly harassed and plagued the puritans, to bring them to an exact conformity" (Lives of the Puritans, Vol. 1, p. 64). Akrigg described Bancroft as "that harrier of the Puritans" (Jacobean Pageant, p. 312). Robert Dale wrote: “During the seven years that Bancroft was Archbishop of Canterbury, Puritanism was repressed with merciless severity” (History, p. 186). Thomas Fuller noted that “Bancroft was driving-on conformity very fiercely throughout all his province” (Church History, III, p. 243). Edward Baines wrote: “Writings which were leveled against Episcopacy or intended to recommend any other mode of church discipline, he [Bancroft] treated as seditious, and deemed their authors enemies of the state” (History of the County Palatine, Vol. 5, p. 32). McGrath designated Bancroft as "one of the most relentless opponents of Puritanism in England" (In the Beginning, p. 152). Trevor-Roper depicted Bancroft as "a masterful man whose hatred of Puritanism has been described as 'paranoid'" (Catholics, Anglicans, & Puritans, p. 48). F. O. White maintained that Bancroft’s “archi-episcopate was marked by the most rigid enforcement of conformity” (Lives, p. 381). Henry Thomas Buckle described Bancroft as “one of the most violent persecutors of the Puritans” (Works, I, p. 129). Arthur Fox referred to Bancroft as the “bitter persecutor of the Puritan party” (Book, p. 165). George Perry noted that Bancroft “came to be regarded by many as a persecuting tyrant” (History, I, p. 186). Robert Vaughan asserted that Bancroft “in temper and principles was much more a Papist than a Protestant” (English Nonconformity, p. 75). In 1641, William Prynne described Bancroft as “a great persecutor of godly ministers, a favourer and harbourer of priests and Jesuits” (Antipathy, pp. 239-240).

 

[Logos1560]

The KJV was the culmination of the English Reformation and an attempt to end the bloodshed and establish peace.

You make the claim, but you do not prove it to be true.

Someone else could as well claim that the 1560 Geneva Bible was the culmination of the English Reformation, and that the post-Reformation 1611 KJV was a step backwards.

Donald Brake maintained that “the Geneva Bible became the cornerstone of the Reformation” (Visual History of the English Bible, p. 150). Brad Taliaferro asserted that the Geneva Bible “became the Bible of the reformation” (Bible Version Encyclopedia, p. 66). An article in Unpublished Word suggested that “the Geneva Bible was the Bible that gave momentum to the Protestant Reformation” (Spring, 2009, p. 11). Concerning the Geneva Bible, Leland Ryken asserted: “This is the Bible of the Reformers” (Word of God in English, p. 49). David Daniell reported: “It was a masterpiece of Renaissance scholarship and printing, and Reformation Bible thoroughness” (Bible in English, p. 291). Larry Stone observed: “The Geneva Bible became part of England’s Protestant national identity” (Story of the Bible, p. 73). Andrew Hadfield suggested that the Geneva Bible “with its extensive commentary helped impose a Protestant outlook on wide sections of the population” (O’Sullivan, Bible as Book, pp. 152-153). Reader’s Digest’s book ABC’s of the Bible maintained that the Geneva Bible “helped shape the course of English history” and was “influencing English and American religious thought over several generations” (pp. 303-304).

 

[Rob_BW]

So now are you disavowing your posts? The KJV was the culmination of the English Reformation and an attempt to end the bloodshed and establish peace. By number of books, it is about half Tyndale, which is remarkable and shows the genius of the man.

If you are #NeverKJV, that is fine, but you have no right to say that the English did not seal their testimony with their blood.

My pastor preaches solely from the KJV. My children attend a private school that uses the KJV, solely. So attack me if you want.

But while Tyndale and the KJB committees were both scholars who labored greatly for God, only Tyndale was a martyr.

So I'll ask again, are the NKVJ and ASV just as soaked in blood as the KJV?

 

[church mouse guy]

You make the claim, but you do not prove it to be true.

Someone else could as well claim that the 1560 Geneva Bible was the culmination of the English Reformation, and that the post-Reformation 1611 KJV was a step backwards.

Donald Brake maintained that “the Geneva Bible became the cornerstone of the Reformation” (Visual History of the English Bible, p. 150). Brad Taliaferro asserted that the Geneva Bible “became the Bible of the reformation” (Bible Version Encyclopedia, p. 66). An article in Unpublished Word suggested that “the Geneva Bible was the Bible that gave momentum to the Protestant Reformation” (Spring, 2009, p. 11). Concerning the Geneva Bible, Leland Ryken asserted: “This is the Bible of the Reformers” (Word of God in English, p. 49). David Daniell reported: “It was a masterpiece of Renaissance scholarship and printing, and Reformation Bible thoroughness” (Bible in English, p. 291). Larry Stone observed: “The Geneva Bible became part of England’s Protestant national identity” (Story of the Bible, p. 73). Andrew Hadfield suggested that the Geneva Bible “with its extensive commentary helped impose a Protestant outlook on wide sections of the population” (O’Sullivan, Bible as Book, pp. 152-153). Reader’s Digest’s book ABC’s of the Bible maintained that the Geneva Bible “helped shape the course of English history” and was “influencing English and American religious thought over several generations” (pp. 303-304).

Is anyone requiring you to use the KJV? What do you have to say about John Wycliffe? (Don't answer; it's a rhetorical question.) I have been talking about the English Reformation. Tyndale and Luther were friends.

 

[church mouse guy]

My pastor preaches solely from the KJV. My children attend a private school that uses the KJV, solely. So attack me if you want.

But while Tyndale and the KJB committees were both scholars who labored greatly for God, only Tyndale was a martyr.

So I'll ask again, are the NKVJ and ASV just as soaked in blood as the KJV?

Please, go ask your pastor. There were many other martyrs before Tyndale. What about the Lollards?

 

[Rob_BW]

Please, go ask your pastor. There were many other martyrs before Tyndale. What about the Lollards?

Who's disputing any martyrs? All I've said is that I'm not tracking any of the KJV committee members being martyred.

And one more time, are the NKJV and ASV just as blood soaked as the KJV? If it gets a share or martyrs blood, surely these do also, no?

 

[Rob_BW]

As far as I know, just as many KJV translators were martyred for their work as NKJV translators, yet only the KJV gets a share of the martyrs glory?

That is illogical. If being based on a martyrs work transmits merit, then every revision of the KJV should have the right to your elevated status of "blood soaked."

 

[McCree79]

Due to the extremely similar rendering of Genesis 1:1 I would like to submit the NASB, ASV, ESV, WEB, NIV, NLT, HCSB and CSB has blood soaked as well. [emoji4]

As far as I know, just as many KJV translators were martyred for their work as NKJV translators, yet only the KJV gets a share of the martyrs glory?

That is illogical. If being based on a martyrs work transmits merit, then every revision of the KJV should have the right to your elevated status of "blood soaked."

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk