The Primacy of the King James Bible.

[Alan Gross]

"The Roman Catholic minority objected to the King James Bible and so they developed their own school system.

"With the exception of the Catholics, the United States was clearly King James only."

"The only religious group of any size or importance in England that didn't use the King James Bible was Roman Catholicism.

"All non-Catholics could have been referred to as "King James only people."

Alan's note: What Happened?...

I would like to see for once someone write a pro King James Version article

The Primacy of the King James Bible.

From: The Westcott and Hort Only Controversy

"God was doing a great work in England in the early 1600s.

"The preaching of the gospel of Christ out of the Matthew's Bible and the Geneva Bible was leading to multitudes of conversions.

"Evangelicals and Puritans were becoming a stronger and stronger force in the Church of England and in English culture.

"Yet many were concerned that the final translation work into the English language had not been done. King James was persuaded to authorize a new translation.

"The King James Bible was printed in 1611.

"At first there were questions and concerns about this new Bible translation.

"This was as it should be.

"No one should accept a Bible translation lightly.

"By 1640 however, the King James Bible was clearly the Bible of the English people.

"The Geneva and Matthew's Bible, once greatly used of God, went out of print.

"There was simply no demand for them anymore.

"The Church of England, with its official evangelical doctrinal statement, used the King James Bible exclusively.

"It was the Bible of the Puritans, both inside and outside the Church of England. In fact the Puritans began to use the distinctive Biblical English of the King James Bible in their day-to-day speech.

"The King James Bible was the Bible of the Presbyterians, the Congregationalists, and the Quakers.

"It was clearly the Bible of the Baptists.

"By 1640 it was the Bible of the Pilgrims (some had used the Geneva Bible earlier).

"The King James Bible was the Bible of evangelicals in England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland.

"It became the Bible of the English colonies across the Atlantic Ocean.

"The only religious group of any size or importance in England that didn't use the King James Bible was Roman Catholicism.

"All non-Catholics could have been referred to as "King James only people."

"When the Methodist Revival stirred England in the 1700s, it did so with the preaching of the King James Bible.

"John Wesley, one of the founders of the Methodists, made his own translation of the New Testament. However, it found little acceptance, even among Methodists.

"Only the King James Bible was in common use.

"When English colonies flourished in Australia and New Zealand, the King James Bible was the common Bible of the settlers.

"When President George Washington took the first presidential oath of office in the new United States of America, he did so with his hand on a King James Bible.

"Every American president since, with the exception of Franklin Pierce, has done the same.

"Over one hundred fifty English translations were produced between 1611 and 1880.

"However, they found no audience except in a few cults.

"Most went out of print quickly. The English speaking, Christian world was truly "King James only".

"Baptist preachers produced a Baptist translation of the Bible.

"They replaced the word baptism with the word Immersion. They replaced the word church with the word assembly.

"However, they found no audience, not even among Baptists. Their translation was soon out of print. The Baptists were truly "King James only".

"As hard as it may be for the liberals and secularists to admit, the American public schools were built around the King James Bible.

"The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States, (not exactly a religious right publication), describes the early public schools this way, "Public schools had a distinctly Protestant flavor, with teachers leading prayers and scripture reading from the King James Bible in their lessons".

"The Roman Catholic minority objected to the King James Bible and so they developed their own school system.

"With the exception of the Catholics, the United States was clearly King James only.

"Russell Kirk (a Roman Catholic historian) describes the influence of the King James Bible on the United States,

"The book that was to exert a stronger influence than any other in the Americas was not published until 1611, a few years after the first Virginian settlement: the 'King James' translation of the Bible, the Authorized Version, was prepared by English scholars for King James I.

"Read from American pulpits and in the great majority of American households during colonial times, the Authorized Version shaped the style, informed the intellect, affected the laws, and decreed the morals of the North American Colonies."

"Truly the early United States was King James only.

"According to Winston Churchill, ninety million copies of the King James Bible had been printed by the mid-twentieth century.

"The King James Bible was the Bible of the great modern missions movement of the 1100's and 1800's. The missionaries from England and the United States were saved, called to the mission field, and trained under the preaching of the King James Bible.

"They traveled around the world, introducing the gospel of grace to millions.

"Many of these missionaries knew little or no Greek and Hebrew. They translated the Bible into 160 languages from the King James Bible.

"Truly the modern missions movement was a King James only movement."

 

[Deacon]

I do like the scholars that brought us the KJV.

"These men were the greatest scholars of their day or any day, so erudite and learned that the scholarship of today pales in comparison."

But Alan, can you learn from them???

The Latin Vulgate was the primary Bible of Christendom for more than a thousand years; the Septuagint for even a longer time.

The King James translators believed that those opposed to modern translations would use the age of previous translations to argue against their new translation.

The mouths of many men have been open for a good while (and remain unstopped) with speeches about this translation which has been in preparation for so long, or about readings of preceding translations. They ask what may be the reason for this effort: has the church been deceived, they say, all this time? Our opponents say, “ [Was the church’s time-tested translation] good before? Why do they [the King James translators] now mend it? Was it not good? Why then was it thrust upon the people?’
King James Version Preface​

The King James translators did not believe their translation was perfect.

There is no reason why the Word, when translated, should be denied to be the Word, or be forbidden to be circulated, even though some imperfections and blemishes may be found in the expression of it. We may gather from the account of Ezra and the prophecy of Haggai that the temple which was built by Zerubbabel after the return from Babylon was by no means comparable to the temple built by Solomon (for they that remembered the former wept when they considered the latter). Nevertheless, should the latter temple have been abhorred and forsaken by the Jews, or desecrated by the Greeks? We think of translations along such lines. Truly, good Christian reader, we never thought from the beginning, that we would need to make a new translation, nor to make a good one out of a bad one Our goal was to make a good translation into a better translation—or, out of many good translations, to make one principal good translation This would be a translation to which people could not justly take exception. This has been our endeavor, this our objective. For this reason many translators were chosen who were greater in other men’s eyes than in their own, who sought the truth rather than their own praise.
KJV Preface​

It has pleased God in his divine providence to scatter into Scripture here and there words and sentences which are to some degree difficult and doubtful. These things are not in doctrinal passages concerning salvation (for in such passages the Scriptures are plain), but in matters of less importance. So fearfulness would be more fitting for us than confidence, and we should endorse modesty along with St. Augustine…, who said, “It is better to make doubt of those things which are secret, than to argue about those things that are uncertain.”
KJV Preface​

Many words in the Scriptures are never found there but once—having neither brother nor neighbor, as the Hebrews say, so that we cannot be assisted by comparing their usage in different contexts. There are many rare names of certain birds, beasts, and precious gems, for example, concerning which the Jews themselves are so divided regarding their definitions, that it seems as if they have chosen this or that definition simply because they had to pick something rather than because they were sure of what they said.
KJV Preface

Now in such a case, is it not fitting to have a marginal note advising the reader to seek further, and not to conclude or to dogmatize upon this or that too quickly? For just as it is a fault of unbelief to doubt things that are clear, it is also wrong to insist on certainty about things that the Spirit of God has left (even in the judgment of the judicious) questionable. This can be no less than presumption.
Therefore, just as St. Augustine says that variety of translations is profitable for the finding out of the meaning of the Scriptures, so a diversity of meanings in the margin, where the text is not so clear, must do good. It is necessary, we are persuaded.
KJV Preface

We know that Sixtus the Fifth [the former Catholic Pope] expressly forbids that any variant readings of their edition of the Vulgate should be put in the margin, but we think that in taking this vain step he does not have all his supporters on his own side. Those who are wise would rather have their sense of judgment be at liberty regarding differences of readings, rather than have it be captivated to one, when it may be the other… but the eyes of the world are now open, God be thanked, and they have been open for a great while.
KJV Preface​

Learn from the humble scholars that produced the King James Version.

Rob

 

[Alan Gross]

But Alan, can you learn from them???

Learn from the humble scholars that produced the King James Version.

Learn what?

"the way of the heathen"?
Jeremiah 10:2b.

Where the 'scholars' of the King James Version just two infidels, with an ulterior motive for sabotaging God's Word, that multitudes of God's people believe they had a hidden reason for accomplishing, that was diametrically in opposition to God and the Cause of Christ?

Were they Anti-Christ, as to their faith and practice?

If so, I don't think we should be locking arm-in-arm with the KJV scholars and dancing down Primrose Street with them, ether.

 

[Conan]

The Protestant Geneva Bible out sold the 1611 KJV by far. It was the peoples choice. It was a study Bible. People did not trust the Anglican Bible. It wasn't until king james outlawed the Geneva Bible to be printed in England that it was able to finally out sell the Geneva. There were still many Geneva's printed in Europe with it's dates printed to be before the ban and therefore still selling in England. To get people to buy his Bible, king james had to outlaw the more popular Geneva Bible.

It is to be remembered that when a KJVOnlyist person is deceitful and falsely claims that it's translators translated the English Bible that they are being deceitful with people who know nothing about English Bible history. English Bibles had been translated and printed long before king james. His Bible was a mere revision of previous English Bibles, many which were better than the KJV.

William Tyndale was the first Englishman to Translate The Bible from the Original Greek and Hebrew and was the first to print the whole New Testament and much of he Old Testament before he was executed for giving the English People the Bible in their own language. Most of the KJV comes straight from the hand of William Tyndale before its translators were born.

Then Miles Coverdale gathered Tyndale's translations and translated books not translated by Tyndale to complete the first printed English Bible.

Then John Rodgers took Coverdale's Bible and revised it, using William Tyndale's last translations from the Original Greek and Hebrew and printing it in Matthews Bible.

Miles Coverdale saw it's high accuracy and used it in the Great Bible, the first official Authorized legal English Bible.

A lot of these Bibles were burned by queen mary in her quest to turn England back to Roman Catholicism. KJVOnlyist try and hide this fact seeing how the KJV was never burned or persecuted.

Then the Geneva Bible was translated buy the exiled English Believers in Europe using the best of these Bibles. Miles Coverdale participated in the Geneva.

Then the Anglican Church of England came out with its official revision of the Great Bible, translated by the Bishops and so called the Bishops Bible. These men loved the Latin language, and sometimes it shows in their Bible, as well as coming into the 1611 KJV.

Then the Roman Catholics, seeing that there were so many English Bibles, decided to publish their own Bible from the Latin Vulgate, but also looking at the Greek and Hebrew.

Then it was decided the Bishops Bible needed revision and so came the 1611 KJV. IT WAS NOT a new translation, but a revision of the Bishops Bible, which was started by William Tyndale's pioneering translations.

The KJV is mostly William Tyndale's translations from the 1525-35 with contributions from all of the other previously mention Bibles. 99.% of the KJV was already translated before king james decided he wanted a revision of the Bishops Bible.

 

[Conan]

quoted from Alan Gross.

"By 1640 however, the King James Bible was clearly the Bible of the English people.

"The Geneva and Matthew's Bible, once greatly used of God, went out of print.

"There was simply no demand for them anymore

The Geneva Bible was outlawed by King James because no one was "purchasing" the KJV but Churches. The people preferred the Geneva. There are many Geneva's today that have a forged date to pass before the ban and be legal. You can purchase them off of ebay.

Matthews Bible contains the latest revisions of William Tyndale in 1535 and so has came down in all English Bibles up until at least WORLD WAR TWO. Without the Matthews Bible there would be no KJV. For most of the KJV comes from Matthews Bible.

 

[Alan Gross]

KJV was never burned or persecuted.

Then, what exactly are you doing?

Then the Roman Catholics, seeing that there were so many English Bibles, decided to publish their own Bible from the Latin Vulgate, but also looking at the Greek and Hebrew.

So, the RCC is to be exulted because they were "looking at the Greek and Hebrew".

Is this an April fool's joke?

It is to be remembered that when a KJVOnlyist person is deceitful and falsely claims that it's translators translated the English Bible that they are being deceitful with people who know nothing about English Bible history.

You said "deceitful" twice in one sentence and that the KJB translators didn't translate the English Bible.

Try to say something if you're going to make such a gratuitous assertion.

 

[Conan]

Then, what exactly are you doing?

I use the KJV. Not exclusively.

So, the RCC is to be exulted because they were "looking at the Greek and Hebrew".

Is this an April fool's joke?

You had better hope so, because the KJV revisors consulted the Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament. Sometimes the KJV revisors rejected the Reformation Bibles for the Rheims New Testament. Not most of the times, but sometimes.

You said "deceitful" twice in one sentence and that the KJB translators didn't translate the English Bible.

Try to say something if you're going to make such a gratuitous assertion.

If you were familiar with Reformation Bibles you would know.

Textus Receptus Bibles

 

[Alan Gross]

The Protestant Geneva Bible out sold the 1611 KJV by far. It was the peoples choice. It was a study Bible. People did not trust the Anglican Bible.

To get people to buy his Bible, king james had to outlaw the more popular Geneva Bible.

English Bibles had been translated and printed long before king james. His Bible was a mere revision of previous English Bibles, many which were better than the KJV.

Most of the KJV comes straight from the hand of William Tyndale before its translators were born.

the KJV was never burned or persecuted.

These men loved the Latin language, and sometimes it shows in their Bible, as well as coming into the 1611 KJV.

the 1611 KJV. IT WAS NOT a new translation

I can do a LOT better job of disparaging the KJV than this.

All I need is a little c&p from Westcott and Hort's inner circle of most valued confidantes.

"Now that the 'Revised Version' of the gospels has been published by Westcott and Hort, and the most glaring mistranslations in the old version, the King James, are corrected, one will better understand the words. The text of the English Protestant Bible is in disagreement as usual with the Alexandrian text. That which for nearly 1,500 years was opposed on Christianism of a book of which every word was written under direct supervision of the Holy Ghost; of which not one syllable or comma could be changed without Sacrilege, but now is being retranslated, revised and corrected and clipped of whole verses, and in some cases almost entire chapters. And as soon as the new edition is out, its doctors Westcott and Hort will have us accept it as new revelation of the 19th century. And the King James translators have made such a jumble of it, that no one but an occultist can restore the Bible to its orginal form."
(H. P. Blavatsky, on the Bible, Isis Unveiled.)

Wherever we find spiritualism, occultism and satanism, we find the infallibililty of the King James Bible decried, and the RV exalted:

"I am proud to have been one of the pioneer workers in the Spiritualistic field, and have suffered much for the cause of Spiritualism, in upholding its purity and promulgating its truth. I am writing this in defense of the glorious truth I love so well...The King James Bible is admittedly one of the most incorrect versions..." (Franklin Alonzo Thomas, Philosophy and Phenomena of Spiritalism, 1922)

Another example is H. P. Blavatsky (1831-1891); she was an early leader of the occult Theosophy movement. She founded the Theosophical Society in 1875. Blavatsky was a Satanist, who claimed to be a medium. What do these Satanically-inspired writers think about the King James Bible and the new versions??? Blavatsky's words on the subject are frighteningly close to those of many modern, conservative scholars. She called Westcott, "a learned scholar" (i.e. Isis Unveiled), and quotes him often. Statements from Blavatsky could be multiplied, such as, "...the Revised Version does not repeat the mistakes of the Authorized Version..." For example, she writes:

"In the King James's version, as it stands translated, it has no resemblance to the original." (Blavatsky, Isis Unveiled).

"Add to this the fact that out of the forty-seven translators of King James' Bible 'only three understood Hebrew' ...and one may easily understand what reliance can be placed on the English version of the bible...Now the Revised Version of the gospels has been published and most glaring mistranslations of the old versions are corrected, one will understand better the words in St. John [chapter 5:6-7]..." (Blavatsky, The Secret Doctrine, 1888)"

etc., etc., etc.

From: Westcott and Hort: Authors of the 'new' (verboten word) Bibles | Pauline Biblicist ~PBSF~ Society Fellowship

It is almost like the Modern Bibles were intended to bridge the gap between Apostate Christianity, The New Age Movement, and the Occult.

There is certainly far more overwhelming evidence of that prospect than that Westcott and Hort were attempting an HONEST work of God.

 

[Marooncat79]

Totally unbelievable

there is no logical arguing w/ a KJvO

 

[Conan]

I can do a LOT better job of disparaging the KJV than this.

All I need is a little c&p from Westcott and Hort's inner circle of most valued confidantes.

"Now that the 'Revised Version' of the gospels has been published by Westcott and Hort, and the most glaring mistranslations in the old version, the King James, are corrected, one will better understand the words. The text of the English Protestant Bible is in disagreement as usual with the Alexandrian text. That which for nearly 1,500 years was opposed on Christianism of a book of which every word was written under direct supervision of the Holy Ghost; of which not one syllable or comma could be changed without Sacrilege, but now is being retranslated, revised and corrected and clipped of whole verses, and in some cases almost entire chapters. And as soon as the new edition is out, its doctors Westcott and Hort will have us accept it as new revelation of the 19th century. And the King James translators have made such a jumble of it, that no one but an occultist can restore the Bible to its orginal form."
(H. P. Blavatsky, on the Bible, Isis Unveiled.)

Wherever we find spiritualism, occultism and satanism, we find the infallibililty of the King James Bible decried, and the RV exalted:

"I am proud to have been one of the pioneer workers in the Spiritualistic field, and have suffered much for the cause of Spiritualism, in upholding its purity and promulgating its truth. I am writing this in defense of the glorious truth I love so well...The King James Bible is admittedly one of the most incorrect versions..." (Franklin Alonzo Thomas, Philosophy and Phenomena of Spiritalism, 1922)

Another example is H. P. Blavatsky (1831-1891); she was an early leader of the occult Theosophy movement. She founded the Theosophical Society in 1875. Blavatsky was a Satanist, who claimed to be a medium. What do these Satanically-inspired writers think about the King James Bible and the new versions??? Blavatsky's words on the subject are frighteningly close to those of many modern, conservative scholars. She called Westcott, "a learned scholar" (i.e. Isis Unveiled), and quotes him often. Statements from Blavatsky could be multiplied, such as, "...the Revised Version does not repeat the mistakes of the Authorized Version..." For example, she writes:

"In the King James's version, as it stands translated, it has no resemblance to the original." (Blavatsky, Isis Unveiled).

"Add to this the fact that out of the forty-seven translators of King James' Bible 'only three understood Hebrew' ...and one may easily understand what reliance can be placed on the English version of the bible...Now the Revised Version of the gospels has been published and most glaring mistranslations of the old versions are corrected, one will understand better the words in St. John [chapter 5:6-7]..." (Blavatsky, The Secret Doctrine, 1888)"

etc., etc., etc.

From: Westcott and Hort: Authors of the 'new' (verboten word) Bibles | Pauline Biblicist ~PBSF~ Society Fellowship

It is almost like the Modern Bibles were intended to bridge the gap between Apostate Christianity, The New Age Movement, and the Occult.

There is certainly far more overwhelming evidence of that prospect than that Westcott and Hort were attempting an HONEST work of God.

Westcott and Hort have been long dead. You seem to care what they say a great deal. I rank them and KJVOlyist the same. Their all wrong. Westcott/Hort AND Alan Gross are wrong.

Try and branch out a little. Study one of the good Bibles. William Tyndale would be a great start. He was put to death for giving us the English Bible. His hand is in all Bibles up until at least WW2.

If you want to study Westcott and Horts stand on textual criticism so you can prove them wrong thats a fine goal. There is plenty wrong with their theories. You don't need to make up lies about them to slander them. Engage their theories and explain their errors. There are plenty to be found. No reason to repeat the lies of KJVOnlyist, which is what you are doing.

 

[MrW]

Alan didn’t make up lies. He reported on the liars.
——————————————-//——————-
Separate comment:

Deacon, are you a Catholic or have I gotten an errant impression?

 

[Conan]

Separate comment:

Deacon, are you a Catholic or have I gotten an errant impression?

Where did you get that unbelieving thought from? He's Baptist.

 

[Alan Gross]

Did you stop railing against the KJV?

It is almost like the Modern Bibles were intended to bridge the gap between Apostate Christianity, The New Age Movement, and the Occult.

There is certainly far more overwhelming evidence of that prospect than that Westcott and Hort were attempting an HONEST work of God.

Here is some inspiration for you, from folks that were in that business a long time ago:

"Madame Helena Petrovna Blavatsky connections to Westcott & Hort:

"H. P. Blavatsky also attended the "Ghostly Guild" meetings with Westcott and Hort, along with Charles Darwin. In her books Isis Unveiled Vol. 1 and 2, and The Secret Doctrine Vol. 1 and 2, Blavatsky says, "we have the Bible in true in Codex Sinaiticus (א) and Codex Vaticanus (B)"

"and goes on to say "Westcott and Hort were true scholars that corrected the errors in previous versions." Blavatsky also said that Westcott was the father of "channeling."

"Some of the followers of Blavatsky also claimed to be under the control of spirits through automatic writing, etc. In 1891, Annie Besant (1847-1933) succeeded Blavatsky as head of the Theosophical Society.

"From 1889, until Blavatsky's death in 1891, Besant was a co-editor of the Theosophical Society's "Lucifer Magazine." Besant, and her associates, hated the King James Bible:

"The English translation (Authorized Version--KJV) is wretchedly imperfect. Errors abound in it, and some of them are of a most laughable description. On this account, great calls have been made for the new translation..." (Charles Bradlaugh, Annie Wood Besant, Charles Watts, The Freethinker's Text-book, 1876)

Later Theososphical writings continue to attack the King James Bible:

"...the English translation called the Authorized Version...while it is dear to English people...yet lacks entirely the proper spirit of the mystical Hebrew original; and the very fact that Englishmen love their King James's version so much distracts their attention away from the original Mystical sense of the Hebrew scriptures. Go then to the original tongue..." (Lucifer Magazine, January to December 1930)

"Another influential occult writer is Manly Palmer Hall. Notice the following short biography of this Satanic writer:

"Manly Palmer Hall [1901-1990] was a Canadian-born author and mystic. He is perhaps most famous for his work The Secret Teachings of All Ages: An Encyclopedic outline of Masonic, Hermetic, Qabbalistic and Rosicrucian Symbolocal Philosophy, which is widely regarded as his magnum opus, and which he published at the age of 25 (or 27, 1928)...In 1973 (47 years after writing The Secret Teaching of All Ages), Hall was recognized as a 33-degree Mason, at a ceremony held at PRS on December 8th..." (www.manlyphall.org)

"Manly P. Hall often wrote against the King James Bible. He sometimes slandered it with historical lies, but his main goal (like the earlier necromancers) was to oppose the popular view of its infallibility!:

"The King James version is especially rich in errors..." (Manly P. Hall, Reincarnation: The cycle of Necessity, 1956)

"We know that the Authorized Version by no means satisfies the requirements of advanced Biblical scholarship..." (Manly P. Hall, Horizon, Issue 9. Vol. 1, 1949)

"...we have to undo much that is a cherished error. The problem of revising the Bible shows how difficult is to do this. For the last hundred years, we have been trying to get out an edition of the Bible that is reasonably correct; but nobody wants it. What's wanted is the good old King James version, every jot and tittle of it, because most people are convinced that God dictated the Bible to King James in English." (Manly P. Hall, Horizon, Philosophical Research Society, 1944)

"The occult plan is plainly confessed above.

"What book did Hall (who boasted of having the keys to channeling the power of Lucifer) call one of the great books of the world?

"It was one of the principal manuscripts issued by all modern versions, and many modern scholars to supposedly "correct" the King James Bible!:

"The Codex Sinaiticus is a manuscript of the 4th Century...This manuscript is one of the great books of the world, and although it was discovered long after the publication of the now universally accepted King James version of the Bible, it is sufficiently important to justify considerable revision of our popular conception of the Scriptural writings." (Manly P. Hall, Horizon the Magazine of useful and Intelligent Living, 1946)

from: Westcott and Hort: Authors of the 'new' (*********) Bibles | Pauline Biblicist ~PBSF~ Society Fellowship

Westcott and Hort have been long dead.

So is Blavatsky. Blavatsky died in 1891.

Where are they, now?

You seem to care what they say a great deal. I rank them and KJVOlyist the same. Their all wrong. Westcott/Hort AND Alan Gross are wrong.

"The Deity of Christ:

“He never speaks of Himself directly as God, but the aim of His revelation was to lead men to see God in Him.” (Westcott, The Gospel According to St. John, p. 297).

“(John) does not expressly affirm the identification of the Word with Jesus Christ.” (Westcott, Ibid., p. 16).

“(Rev. 3:15) might no doubt bear the Arian meaning, the first thing created.” (Hort, Revelation, p.36).

"Perhaps this is why their Greek text makes Jesus a created god (John 1:18) and their American translation had a footnote concerning John 9:38, "And he said, Lord, I believe and he worshipped him," which said, "The Greek word denotes an act of reverence, whether paid to a creature, as here, or to the Creator" (thus calling Christ a creature).

"Salvation:

"The thought (of John 10:29) is here traced back to its most absolute form as resting on the essential power of God in His relation of Universal Fatherhood." (Westcott, St. John, p. 159).

"I confess I have no repugnance to the primitive doctrine of a ransom paid to Satan. I can see no other possible form in which the doctrine of a ransom is at all tenable; anything is better than the doctrine of a ransom to the father." (Hort, The First Epistle of St. Peter 1:1-2:17, p. 77).

"Perhaps this is why their Greek text adds to salvation in 1st Peter 2:2.

"And why their English version teaches universal salvation in Titus 2:11,
"For the grace of God hath appeared, bringing salvation to all men" (ASV).

Hell:

“(Hell is) not the place of punishment of the guilty, (it is) the common abode of departed spirits.” (Westcott, Historic Faith, pp.77-78)

“We have no sure knowledge of future punishment, and the word eternal has a far higher meaning.” (Hort, Life and Letters, Vol. I, p.149)

"Perhaps this is why their Greek text does not have Mark 9:44, and their English translation replaces “everlasting fire” [Matthew 18:8] with “eternal fire” and changes the meaning of eternal as cited by Hort in the above quote."

from: Westcott & Hort: Translator's Beliefs

 

[JonC]

The KJV was an Anglican Bible while the Catholic Church used the Douay–Rheims Bible (an English Bible, NT translated 1582, OT translated 1609). The GNV (1599) is probably the most significant English translation. It was the primary Bible of English protestants and protestants who separated from the Church of England.

The reason the Church of England disliked the GNV is it did not strongly support the church hierarchy that placed the king of England over Christianity (the GNV was not as favorable to the monarchy as England desired).

If we want to look at the agenda behind the KJV, Baptists would consider it problematic for the same reasons early Baptists rejected the translation.

Initially the KJV was largely rejected. So why the change?

With the invention of the printing press England banned the printing of the GNV. They wanted a version of the Bible that supported the English monarchy and rightly concluded that by allowing only the KJV to be printed it would take root.

But to address why the KJV was, for a long time, the primary English Bible the answer is that it supported the agenda of the English government so they made it so by banning the most popular (at the time) English Bible.

 

[Conan]

quoted from Alan Gross
Did you stop railing against the KJV?

That is falsewitnesse, plain and simple. You think it right to lie and give falsewitnesses to promote the KJV? You harm the KJV by telling untruths. The KJV is an excellent Version. It does not need lies and falsewitnesse to support it. It stands on it's own, no thanks to you.

 

[Alan Gross]

"With the exception of the Catholics, the United States was clearly King James only.

"Russell Kirk (a Roman Catholic historian) describes the influence of the King James Bible on the United States,

"The book that was to exert a stronger influence than any other in the Americas was not published until 1611, a few years after the first Virginian settlement: the 'King James' translation of the Bible, the Authorized Version, was prepared by English scholars for King James I.

So the reason for the primacy of the KJB, in English and other languages world-wide for over 400 years is because, "it supported the agenda of the English government"(?) and King James banned the “Breeches Bible”(?), in Late Medieval England?

Well, I'll be...

But to address why the KJV was, for a long time, the primary English Bible the answer is that it supported the agenda of the English government so they made it so by banning the most popular (at the time) English Bible.

 

[MrW]

Where did you get that unbelieving thought from? He's Baptist.

Why is it unbelieving? It’s a simple yes or no question that I suppose him capable of affirming or denying.

 

[JonC]

So the reason for the primacy of the KJB, in English and other languages world-wide for over 400 years is because, "it supported the agenda of the English government"(?) and King James banned the “Breeches Bible”(?), in Late Medieval England?

Well, I'll be...

No. Not because it supported the English monarchy but because the English monarchy banned the printing of the Geneva Bible.

King James viewed referenced for passages like Daniel 6:22 to reflect poorly on the position of the king (you have to remember that the KJV was written to provide a translation to the Church of England, which remained largely Catholic minded with the exception of the role of the English monarchy and a pope).

This is why English Separatists rejected the KJV.

I'm not saying either translation is bad.

But history tells us exactly why the KJV became, for a long time, the most popular translation. England banned the printing of the most popular English translation at the time.

 

[kyredneck]

Totally unbelievable

there is no logical arguing w/.......

....not only KJVOs, but closed minds in general...

 

[JonC]

....not only KJVOs, but closed minds in general...

This is why I try to be very careful. I realize KJVO is a type of cult mentality and there will be no true reasoning. But I want to be very careful to be clear not to condemn God's Word (whether the KJV, the NASB, the NIV, ect.). God is simply greater than the KJVO folks allow.