Featured Other Christian Denominations and King James Only

Bruce McConkie wrote: "The King James Version has been and remains the official version of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" (Mormon Doctrine, p. 423). In a Mormon history of the Bible, Read acknowledged that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints “continues to hold to use of the King James Version” (How We Got the Bible, p. 92). Mormon J. Reuben Clark, Jr. wrote: “The Inspired Version of the Prophet Joseph Smith fully supports, in all essential matters of the New Testament, the King James Version, which Version has thus been the accepted Bible text for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints from the Prophet’s time on down” (Why the KJV, p. 3). Reuben Clark maintained that “the great bulk of our people know and use only the Authorized Version,“ and he added: “The Authorized Version is to most of us The Bible, and we would feel we had been disloyal to the record of God’s dealing with men if we were to use any other text” (p. 60). The first edition of Reuben Clark's book Why the King James Version was published in 1956.

Stephen L. Richards also noted that Mormons "accept the King James Version as the standard translation" (About Mormonism, p. 10). This group has even published their own edition of the King James Version "with Explanatory Notes and Cross References to the Standard Works of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" (Decker, Massive Mormon Scripture Mess, pp. 4-5). The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints has also published editions of the KJV bound together with the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price. These editions are sometimes called by Mormons the “Quad Scriptures.“

Could KJV-onlyism be said to add to the Scriptures? KJV-only advocates often seem to add ideas to verses that the verses do not state. The New Testament in Greek does not teach modern, non-scriptural KJV-only doctrine so could KJV-only doctrine in one sense be considered something added to the Bible? Does KJV-only doctrine attempt to add traditions of men to the Bible?

 

I pastor a fundamental Baptist Church in Stoke-on-Trent, Staffordshire. We have no desire to be affiliated with the Baptist Union as it is ecumenical in its outlook and often liberal in its positions. We are premillennial dispensational, use the Authorised Version, and are conservative in our music styles. If you want to know more see:

www.miltonbaptistchurch.co.uk

Fundamentalism in the UK

Ok sorry it's Baptist.

 

Old Chap,

You, and only you, may refer to me as Pastor SGO.

I am a Christian before any denomination and Baptist or Bible Churchist by other name but do not prefer it.

The Congregation is in the UK.

The post is from an old Baptist Board thread in the archives.

Cheers for the links.

Cheerio.

 

OH I say Old boy, so being a Brit and all... do you have a tea preference? I’m partial to Earl Grey with the bergamot... the vendor is Bigelow Tea blenders out of the states. I prefer them to Twinings.

 

Young Sir,

I shall kindly refer you to Saved By Grace or Sir Martin Marprelate;
for they are, at this time, Her Majesty's premier teas er, or beg pardon, I err, masters of infusion on this gilded forum.

Knave SGO

 

Oh I say old boy, how can you claim to be British without a daily cup of tea!?! Unheard of Swithens... just not cricket.

 

Young Sir,

Fancy a cuppa?
Expecting you are cheekily mining a claim and
chuffed to bits about it.

 

KJV-only advocates are trying to read something into the Westminster Confession of Faith about Bible translations that it does not state.

There is clear historical evidence that some members of the Westminster Assembly considered the KJV to have some errors [both errors in printing and errors in translation] and to need revision since they were involved in an effort to revise it in the 1650's.

A bill for revising the English translation of the Scriptures in the 1650’s passed by Parliament would show that Bible translations were not considered to be inspired or perfect by the Westminster Assembly since some of its members are named as involved in an effort to revise it.

John Stoughton cited this bill as stating: “it is our duty to endeavour to have the Bible translated in all places as accurately and as perfectly agreeing with the original Hebrew and Greek as we can attain unto” (Ecclesiastical History of England, II, p. 545). From a draft of a bill for revising the English translation, John Stoughton listed the following men who were to “search and observe wherein the last translation appears to be wronged by the Prelates, or printers, or others”: “John Owen, Ralph Cudworth, Mr. Jenkins, William Greenhill, Samuel Slater, William Cowper, Henry Jessey, Ralph Venninge, and John Row” (Ibid.). Stoughton cited the bill as appointing Dr. Thomas Goodwin, Dr. [Anthony] Tuckney, and Mr. Joseph Caryl as supervisors of the revision (p. 545). Ira Price observed that “the reasons that lay back of the bill were in part errors, mainly printers’, and some in translation, and also the so-called prelatical language of the version” (Ancestry, p. 280). Henry Barker noted that “the errors of the Authorized Version, through careless editing and proof-reading, but still more what was called its ‘mistranslations’ and its ‘prelatic language’ contributed toward the movement” (English Bible, p. 187). H. W. Hoare wrote: “In part they were influenced by the fact that many blunders had already come to light in the printing, and that the new edition was accused in certain quarters both of numerous mistranslations and also of “speaking the prelatic language’” (Evolution, p. 275). John Eadie pointed out that the report of 14 changes made by prelates became part of the preamble of a bill in Parliament around 1657 (English Bible, II, p. 272). John Eadie cited that preamble as noting that “the like testimony of these prelates” making those changes was “given by some other ancient and godly preachers also, who lived in those times” (Ibid.). Eadie also reported the preamble affirmed that “some appearance hereof may yet be seen in part of that very copy of these translators” (Ibid.). The Calender of State Papers, Domestic Series, 1652-1653 as edited by Mary Green noted: “Statement that Dr. [Thomas] Hill declared in his sermon, and has since published, that when the Bible had been translated by the translators appointed, the New Testament was looked over by some prelates he could name, to bring it to speak prelatical language, and that he was informed by a great observer, that in 14 places, whereof he instanced five or six, it was corrupted by them. The like testimony was given by some other ancient and godly preachers who lived in those times, and some appearance hereof may yet be seen in a part of that very copy of those translations” (p. 73). In his 1648 sermon, Thomas Hill (c1602-1653), a member of the Westminster Assembly, had stated: “I have it from certain hands, such as lived in those times, that when the Bible had been translated by the translators appointed, the New Testament was looked over by some of the great Prelates, (men I could name some of their persons) to bring it to speak prelatical language, and they did alter fourteen places in the New Testament to make them speak the language of the Church of England” (Six Sermons, p. 24; see also Currie, Jus Populi Divinum, pp. 37-38, Eadie, English Bible, II, p. 272, and Bridges, Patronage in the Church of Scotland, p. 6). This historical evidence would demonstrate that members of the Westminster Assembly considered the KJV to have some errors including some in translation, to have some prelatical language indicating episcopal bias, and to need revision.

 

How about this one?

American Presbyterian Church

 

I have asked Mormon missionaries at each occasion of their visits why the Book of Mormon was translated from the 'Golden Tablets' was 'translated' using Elizabethan language which no person in the century in which Joseph Smith translated these tablets spoke. The answer I usually get is 'well, it is such a beautiful style that it is natural that God would want it done so.'