Featured A Bible Doctrine of Preservation

Perhaps there is a reason as in you saved the best for last in a book to read. I really hope you will read it. His terminology is almost identical to yours, and to be honest, some of his book I had to re-read over a few times to comprehend what he was saying.

 

‘And if true, why did the 1611 also list several variants in margins that to them were all equally valid?’

That’s what scholars do; they list variants. Marginal notes are not inspired, but the final text is.

‘The Kjvo conflate their English translation to be exactly same way Muslims view the Koran, but that is not how God describes any translation as being!’

Yes, the Muslims believe they have a perfect translation as they prop up the critical text scholars to use as advertisements against Christianity. They say the scholars claim we don’t have a perfect Bible. I wish we all had the faith of the Muslims in a perfect translation.

‘His hand was indeed upon the only inspired revelation of His, the originals!’

Very true indeed, the originals were inspired by God. Unfortunately, the originals are now forever dust in the wind. Thus, in order for the promises of God to be fulfilled for a perfect Bible for all generations, it must be in a translation by divine preservation. Before the 1960s, before most of the modern versions came, the KJV was for the most part the only Bible in town. The whole world was pretty much KJVO until the new kids on the block arrived. Fifty or so years ago we would not even be having this conversation except among the few ASV holders.

Blessings

 

King James I of England was not humble. He seems to have been a proud and arrogant king.

How were the Church of England makers of the KJV being humble in their involvement in persecuting professed believers who disagreed with some Church of England doctrines? Some of the KJV translators were lord bishops.

How do the Church of England makers of the KJV suggest that they had a correct understanding of the Scriptures when they accepted and believed some incorrect Church of England doctrines such as baptismal regeneration? Their incorrect Church of England doctrinal views influenced some of their translation decisions as demonstrated by how they changed some renderings in the pre-1611 English Bibles to renderings more favorable to Church of England episcopal church government view.

 

One clear example of a 1611 edition rendering that has not been demonstrated to be the fault of the printer would be at 1 Corinthians 12:28. According to Thomas Hill’s 1648 sermon, one of the reported 14 changes made by a prelate or prelates to the text prepared by the KJV translators involved 1 Corinthians 12:28 (Six Sermons, p. 25). Since the 1611 edition’s rendering “helps in governments” is said to be introduced intentionally by a prelate or prelates, it cannot soundly be assumed to be the fault of the printer. “Helpers, governours” was the rendering of Tyndale’s, Coverdale’s, Matthew’s, Great, Whittingham’s, Geneva, and Bishops’ Bibles at this verse. The 1557 Whittingham’s and 1560 Geneva Bible have a marginal note for helpers: “As Deacons” and a marginal note for governors: “As Elders.” The 1599 edition of the Geneva Bible and a 1672 edition of the KJV have the following marginal note for helpers or helps: “the offices of deacons” and this marginal note for governours or governments: “He setteth forth the order of elders, which were the maintainers of the churches discipline.“ Concerning this verse, Paul Baynes (1573-1617) wrote: “The helps God hath put in his Church respect the calling of deacons” (Diocesan’s Trial, p. 72). Augustus Strong referred to “helps” as “indicating the duties of deacons” (Systematic Theology, p. 917). At this verse, the 1657 English translation of the 1637 Dutch Bible has these notes: “helps [that is, who take care of and help the poor and sick] governments, [that is, they that are appointed to keep the Church in good order, and to guide them, which are the elders, Rom. 12:8, 1 Tim. 5:17].”

Benjamin Hanbury quoted the following from the preface to the reader in the Just Defence of the Petition for Reformation that was printed in 1618: “1 Corinthians 12:28 is translated, both by the Genevan and former Church translation [Bishops’] ‘helpers, governors,‘ but the new translators, herein worse than the Rhemists, translate it ‘helps in governments;‘ foisting into the text this preposition ‘in.‘ Why? They cannot abide elders to assist the minister in governing Christ’s Church. So their churchwardens are but the prelates’ promoters” (Historical Memorials, I, p. 131). In his exposition of Ezekiel, William Greenhill (1598-1671) asserted that 1 Corinthians 12:28 “is faulty in this place, reading those words thus, ‘helps in government,‘ which was done to countenance all the assistants prelates had in their government” (p. 551). In his 1648 sermon, Thomas Hill maintained that helps in governments “is a most horrible prodigious violence to the Greek words; for they are both the accusative case, helps; there are elders; governments, there are deacons; now to obscure these, you must put it, helps in governments” (Six Sermons, p. 25).

In his 1593 book advocating that prelatic or Episcopal church government is apostolic, Bishop Thomas Bilson, who would be co-editor of the 1611 edition with Miles Smith, acknowledged that some use 1 Corinthians 12:28 as one verse that they cite for Presbyterian church government. Thomas Bilson wrote: “There remained yet one place where governors are named amongst ecclesiastical officers, and that is 1 Corinthians 12” (Perpetual Government, p. 197). Thomas Bilson wrote: “Why should they not be lay elders or judges of manners? Because I find no such any where else mentioned, and here none proved. Governors there were, or rather governments” (p. 199). Bilson claimed that “Chrysostom maketh ‘helps’ and governments’ all one” (p. 212). In 1641, George Gillespie maintained that “Chrysostom, expounding this place, doth not take helps and governments to be all one, as Bilson hath boldly, but falsely averred” (Assertion of the Government of the Church of Scotland, p. 19).

The 1611 edition of the KJV does exactly what Bishop Thomas Bilson suggested by connecting the words “helps” and “governments” with “in.” David Norton pointed out: “1611, uniquely and apparently without justification from the Greek, reads ‘helps in governments” (Textual History, p. 34). Was this change deliberately and purposely introduced in order to attempt to take away a verse that had been used by those who advocated Presbyterian church government, making it a change with doctrinal implications? Did Bishop Bilson or other prelates take advantage of their positions of authority to attempt to undermine or obscure a favorite text used to support Presbyterian church government? What truth of the original demanded that this doctrinal change be introduced into the 1611 edition? In 1641, Scottish reformer George Gillespie wrote: “We cannot enough admire how the authors of our new English translation were bold to turn it thus, ’helps in government,’ so to make one of two, and to elude our argument” (Assertion, p. 19). Andrew Edgar suggested that George Gillespie “recognized in these words a covert attack on the constitution of the Church of Scotland” (Bibles of England, p. 299, footnote 1). In 1646, George Gillespie wrote: “Whereas he [Mr. Hussey] thinks, helps, governments, to belong both to one thing, there was some such thing once foisted into the English Bibles; antilepsis kubernesis was read thus, helps in governments: but afterwards, the prelates themselves were ashamed of it, and so printed according to the Greek distinctly, helps, governments” (Aaron’s Rod, p. 103). Could the 1611 edition’s reading/rendering at 1 Corinthians 12:28 be considered to contain a change purposefully inserted into the text for doctrinal reasons? Was the underlying textual authority of the 1611 for this deliberate reading and rendering [supposedly Chrysostom] at 1 Corinthians 12:28 in the 1611 edition kept unchanged in the 1629 Cambridge edition or was a textual change made to the 1611 edition in 1629? Would a textual change to the 1611 edition at 1 Corinthians 12:28 not be an authorized textual change “because the team that did the work was disbanded” in 1610 (McElroy, Which Bible, pp. 217, 176)?

 

‘And if true, why did the 1611 also list several variants in margins that to them were all equally valid?’

That’s what scholars do, they list variants. Marginal notes are not inspired, but the final text is.

‘The Kjvo conflate their English translation to be exactly same way Muslims view the Koran, but that is not how God describes any translation as being!’

Yes, the Muslims believe they have a perfect translation as they prop up the critical text scholars to use as advertisements against Christianity. They say the scholars claim we don’t have a perfect Bible. I wish we all had the faith of the Muslims in a perfect translation.

‘His hand was indeed upon the only inspired revelation of His, the originals!’

Very true indeed, the originals were inspired by God. Unfortunately, the originals are now forever dust in the wind. Thus, in order for the promises of God to be fulfilled for a perfect Bible for all generations, it must be in a translation by divine preservation. Before the 1960s, before most of the modern versions came, the KJV was for the most part the only Bible in town. The whole world was pretty much KJVO until the new kids on the block arrived. Fifty or so years ago we would not even be having this conversation except among the few ASV holders.

Blessings

 

‘King James I of England was not humble. He seems to have been a proud and arrogant king.’

Perhaps so. Perhaps King Cyrus was arrogant also. Yet God called Cyrus ‘His anointed’ (Isa 45:1) KJV, and that “He is my shepherd, and shall perform all my pleasure: even saying to Jerusalem, Thou shalt be built; and to the temple, Thy foundation shall be laid” (Isa 44:28) KJV. God has always used Kings, some saved, some unsaved. I see ‘Ad hominem’ arguments as a deflection and rarely use them.

‘How were the Church of England makers of the KJV being humble in their involvement in persecuting professed believers who disagreed with some Church of England doctrines? Some of the KJV translators were lord bishops.’

I never claimed the KJV translators were perfect, and I try to stay away from ‘argumentum ad hominem.’

 

You seem to be suggesting or assuming that the whole world speaks English. Are you ignoring Luther's German Bible and Bible translations in other languages? The 1611 KJV was the new kid on the block compared to the 1534 Luther's German Bible and some Bible translations in other languages. Believers who speak languages rather than English were not KJV-only in the 1500's, 1600's, 1700's, 1800's, or 1900's.

There were several English Bible translations before 1611. In 1611, the KJV was the new kid on the block while the 1560 Geneva Bible was the loved, widely used English Bible. Are you unaware of Wesley's Bible? Wesley's New Testament was first printed in 1755, and an entire Wesley's Bible was still in print at least a few years ago. There was an 1842 English Bible or revision of the KJV made by Baptists and other Bible believers that was printed several years in America.

Many of those who would assume or claim to be KJV-only were not actually KJV-only. They did not claim and believe that the 1611 KJV to be absolutely perfect and inspired. They read the KJV as what it actually was--an imperfect English Bible translation. They read and used Bible study aids, Bible dictionaries, and commentaries that pointed out errors in the KJV. Even some KJV editions in the 1800's had notes pointing out errors in it.

 

'You seem to be suggesting or assuming that the whole world speaks English.'

Not at all. But English is now the universal language and God knew it would be.
What are the 10 most spoken languages in the world? (thinkinitalian.com)

'Believers who speak languages rather than English were not KJV-only in the 1500's, 1600's, 1700's, 1800's, or 1900's.'

True for pre-1500's for the KJV was not out yet. Afterwards many were KJVO in their own languages as missionaries the world over translated the KJV into other languages and still do to this day.

'Even some KJV editions in the 1800's had notes pointing out errors in it'

Perhaps so. There were many printing errors and typos for decades. But not in 2022 or even the Cambridge vs. Oxford fallacy which I address in my blog. I am more concerned about today for everything in the past is water under the bridge.

 

Excellent question. Most anything any of us think we know comes from others.

 

God's word is immutable. What makes you think that is what God did or would do? [Two questions.]

 

Based upon the mantra of KJVO" used most by God". then over past 50 years, that would mean that the Niv would be the go to English translation, based upon sales and use!

 

The bible itself ONLY claims inspiration for the originals penned down by Apostle's and Prophets!

 

Were there mistakes and errors then in the 1611 kjv?

 

Even the patron saint of textual criticism for the Nkjo, Dean Burgeon, favored the kjv and TR, but saw many mistakes that needed correction in both!

 

Would say Chineses spoken as much as English today, as is Spanish in the world, so would they have any word of god to them, since cannot use English kjv?

 

Because He said He would, and I believe He did. It all comes down to what we believe.

Blessings....

 

Yes, there were various printing errors and typos that were all corrected over the years. But the text has remained the same and never changes, as in the annual updates we get now in our day from the modern versions.

 

God forbid. The KJV has been translated in many languages all over the world since 1611 due to missionary efforts and still to this day translators are getting the word out to many nations.