Featured Does authorized by a king mean authorized by God?

Michael Hollner wrote: "'Where the word of a king (King James) is, there is power' (Ecclesiastes 8:4)" (The King James Only Debate, p. 75, 2021 edition).

Did this author add to the word of God by inserting King James into the verse? Does this verse limit a king having power or authority to only King James I of England? Does this verse say that everything authorized by a king is authorized by God?

KJV defender Laurence Vance admitted “the Great Bible was the first ‘authorized’ Bible” (King James, His Bible, p. 80). KJV-only author William Grady maintained that “the Great Bible had the distinction of being the first Bible to be officially authorized for public use in England’s churches” (Final Authority, p. 139).

Hannibal Hamlin and Norman Jones noted that “the Great Bible was officially authorized” (KJB after 400 years, p. 4). John Eadie affirmed that the Great Bible “had been formally authorized by the crown” (English Bible, II, p. 204). William Loftie wrote: “In the strict sense of the word the only version ever authorised was the Great Bible referred to specially in a proclamation of Henry VIII, dated in 1538” (Century of Bibles, p. 5). John King and Aaron Pratt contended that the Great Bible was “the only English Bible ever officially authorized by a monarch” (Hamlin, KJB after, p. 67). Andrew Edgar maintained that the Great Bible “bore on its title page the imprimatur of civil authority” (Bibles of England, p. 286).

Did the 1535 Coverdale’s Bible and the 1537 Matthew’s Bible cease to have any authority as an English Bible for readers after the alternative authorized Great Bible was printed?

Did the Great Bible cease to have any authority for readers after a claimed second authorized translation was printed or after a claimed third authorized translation?

If the first translation under royal authority such as the Great Bible really declared to us the Lord's will, then all title by conquest by another translation would be unlawful.

 

I have read the KJV over 50 years. The KJV is my preferred version, but it was not directly authorized by God in any sense different than other English Bible translations.

In order to follow the Great Commission, there is a need for the making of Bible translations in different languages.

 

It is not direct authorization from God that endorses any specific English Bible translation.

 

Why do you improperly put words in the mouths of others that they do not say?

Do you ignore and dodge the meaning of Bible translation?

A Bible translation is the word of God translated into another language so long as it accurately presents the meaning of the original-language Scriptures. A Bible translation has proper, derived authority from the greater authority of the preserved Scriptures in the original languages. The accuracy of a Bible translation can be evaluated by a comparison of the renderings of that translation to the preserved Scriptures in the original languages.

A Bible translation is not an identical perfect copy of the Scriptures given by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles.
If it was, it would not be termed a translation.

 

Your opinion is not taught in the Scriptures.

Would a consistent application of your opinion suggest that the Redeemer himself authorized the burning at the stake of two men for their beliefs just as he authorized the making of yet another English translation? It was a mere man who authorized and approved this burning at the stake just as it was a mere man who authorized the making of another English translation when the Scriptures had already been translated into English many years earlier.

 

Are you unaware that King James VI had earlier authorized the Geneva Bible?

The Geneva Bible was the authorized version in Scotland. David Daniell noted that a copy of the 1579 edition of the Geneva Bible printed in Scotland “was ordered to be in each parish kirk [church]” (Bible in English, p. 295). KJV-only author Robert Sargent acknowledged that the Geneva Bible “became the official version of Presbyterian Scotland in 1579” (English Bible, p. 197). KJV-only author Doug Stauffer maintained that “the Geneva Bible is reprinted and authorized in Scotland” in 1579 (One Book One Authority, p. 674). Samuel McComb observed that the Geneva Bible “became the version sanctioned in Scotland both by Church and State” (Making, p. 46). William Whitley asserted that the Geneva Bible “became the Scotch Authorized Version” (Jacobus, Roman Catholic and Protestant Bibles, p. 34). John Eadie noted that editions of the Geneva Bible printed in Scotland had been “dedicated to him [King James VI] in 1576-9” (English Bible, II, p. 178).

In his introduction to the facsimile edition of the 1560 Geneva Bible, Lloyd Berry wrote: “The Bassandyne Bible, as it was known, was a reprint of the second edition of the Geneva Bible, the folio of 1561, and contained a dedication praising James VI (later James I of England) for having authorized its publication” (p. 21). David Norton noted that “his [James] approval was invoked on the title page of the first Geneva Bible printed in Scotland” (KJB: a Short History, p. 82). William Beloe indicated that the 1610 edition of the Geneva Bible printed at Edinburgh by Andro Hart had on it: “Cum Privilegio Regiae Majestatio” (Anecdotes of Literature, Vol. 2, p. 332). Geddes MacGregor observed that “the first generation of Scotsmen to enjoy the benefits of the Reformation was reared exclusively upon this version” (Literary History of the Bible, p. 145). The Church of Scotland was a more spiritual or godly church during the 1500's and early 1600's than the compromising Church of England. Compared to the Reformation in England and Ireland, MacCulloch pointed out that “the Scottish Reformation proved the most thoroughgoing” (Reformation, p. 368). Kenneth Bradstreet noted that “the leaders of the Scottish Church were true Reformation saints with a strong doctrine of grace apart from ecclesiastical works” (KJV in History, p. 84).

By what reasoning should the authorized version of Scotland be ignored while the claimed third authorized version of England must be used? Does the endorsement of a more godly church give a translation more authority than the endorsement of a more doctrinally unsound church? Bobrick observed that the Geneva Bible "enjoyed de facto official status, and some of its bindings in folio even had 'Queen Elizabeth Bible' stamped on their spines" (Wide as the Waters, p. 215). Robert Girdlestone asserted that the Geneva Bible “from 1560 to 1640 was practically the authorized version of the English people” (How to Study the English Bible, p. 11). Anderson noted that Queen Elizabeth had granted and given privilege and license to John Bodeleigh to print “the English Bible, with Annotations, faithfully translated and finished in this present year of our Lord God, a thousand, five hundred and three score, and dedicated to us” (Annals of the English Bible, II, p. 324). The 1582 edition of the Geneva Bible printed by Christopher Barker at London included these words on its title page: “cum privilegio Regiae Majestatis” (Waterland, Works, X, p. 342).

A valid case can be made for the Geneva Bible being the standard consensus English Bible for most English-speaking believers before the KJV was ever made.

 

Approved by the bishops of the Church of England (the state church) and by James I (head of this state church), the KJV could be considered an official English Bible of the Anglican Church.

The title page of the 1611 included the following clause: "Appointed to be read in churches," and it referred to “his Majesty’s special commandment.” John Eadie observed that this clause on the 1611 title page “has, so far as is known, no authority, no edict of Convocation, no Act of Parliament, no decision of the Privy Council, no royal proclamation” (English Bible, II, p. 204). The Cambridge History of the Bible noted that “there is no evidence that James, Parliament or Convocation ever expressly commanded the Version either to be printed or to be used” (p. 457). MacGregor noted that “so far as is known there was never any legal instrument conferring authority upon the version” (Bible in the Making, p. 180). Stephen Miller and Robert Huber observed: “There is no surviving evidence that the king formally gave it his stamp of approval, declaring it the official Bible of England” (The Bible, p. 179). MacGregor added: “Its appearance was the subject of no Act of Parliament, no royal Proclamation, no Edict of Convocation, no Privy Council decision” (Ibid.). KJV-only author Robert Sargent claimed: “King James I approved of the project and those selected to work on the translation, but he never issued any royal ‘authorization’” (English Bible, p. 231). In his introduction of a facsimile reprint of the 1526 edition of Tyndale’s New Testament, David Daniell maintained that the KJV was “never, in fact, authorized” (p. i). Norman Geisler and William E. Nix wrote: “Strictly speaking, the so-called Authorized Version (KJV) was never authorized. That tradition seems to rest merely upon a printer’s claim on the title page” (General Introduction, p. 565).

 

A 1602 edition of the Bishops' Bible had the caption--"Authorized and appointed to be read in churches," but the 1611 KJV did not have the word "authorized" on its title page.

KJV-only author Peter Ruckman claimed: “For the term ‘authorized’ does not appear on the original edition of the 1611 Bible, and the term was never connected with King James” (Christian’s Handbook of Manuscript Evidence, p. 26).

Randall Davidson asserted: “The words ‘Appointed to be read in churches’ are absent from at least eight of the editions of the King James Version of the first few years, showing that the printer sometimes, but by no means invariably, added the words to the title-page of this version” (Protestant Episcopal Review, Vol. 6, p. 179). There are more than eight editions that omit those words. Some title pages of KJV editions printed by the king’s printers in London that do not have the words “Appointed to be read in churches” include ones in 1612, 1613, 1614, 1615, 1616, 1617, 1618, 1619, 1620, 1621, 1624, 1625, 1626, and 1627. T. H. Darlow and H. F. Moule maintained that “the words Appointed . . . are regularly omitted from both titles in the early octavo editions, down to 1630” (Historical Catalogue, p. 137). Darlow and Moule noted that “the line Appointed . . . is omitted from both titles” in the first small folio edition in 1616 (p. 148). If the king’s printer had been authorized and directly instructed by the bishop of London, the archbishop, the Privy Council, or the King to include these words on the title page in 1611, it would be very unlikely that he would have dared to omit them in any of the editions that he printed. The fact that those words were omitted in several early editions indicates that the printer himself likely added those words without any specific authorization, perhaps taking or borrowing them from the title page of the 1602 Bishops’ Bible, since he knew that the KJV was intended to replace the Bishops‘. If the printer received any special authorization or order from the Privy Council or the King, why did he deliberately omit the word “authorized” found on that 1602 title page of the Bishops‘ Bible? Alfred Pollard asserted: “There is indeed negative evidence that there was no such order, for the word ‘Appointed,‘ is considerably weaker than the “Authorized and Appointed’ which it replaced” (Records, p. 60). In addition, since these words had been put on the title page of the Bishops’ Bible without any known royal authority, it should be obvious that the same could be true concerning the 1611 title page.