Featured Does a Multitude of Modern English Bible Versions Promote a Violation of 1 Cor 1:10

King James I was the head of the state Church of England.
Approved by the bishops of the Church of England (the state church) and by James I (head of this state church), the KJV can soundly 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 1539 Great Bible is the first authorized version of the Church of England, and it was also authorized by King Henry VIII.
The 1568 Bishops' Bible is the second authorized version of the Church of England.
The 1611 KJV is the third authorized version of the Church of England.

King James I acknowledged the Roman Church to be the mother church (Mathew, King James, p. 105; Davies, The Early Stuarts, p. 205). In a letter to Cecil, James wrote the following concerning the Roman Catholic Church: "I protest to God I reverence their Church as our mother church" (Dictionary of Literary Biography, Vol. 172, p. 126). George Fisher noted: “In his speech to Parliament, he [James I] spoke of the Roman Church as the ‘mother church,‘ although not free from corruptions, and wished that he might be the means of uniting the two religions” (History, p. 398).

 

Your opinion is incorrect. I approach the Scripture under the leading or guiding of the Holy Spirit of truth.

Perhaps your approach is the one more through human wisdom that shows partiality to one exclusive group of doctrinally-unsound Church of England critics in 1611 instead of through the wisdom from God above that is without partiality and without hypocrisy (James 3:16).

Showing partiality or respect of persons to one exclusive group of Bible translators would not be agreement with the wisdom from God above and with righteous judgment (James 3:17, James 2:9, Deut. 1:17, Job 13:10).

 

Do your posts indicate the kind of presumption that the makers of the KJV condemned?

In the 1611 preface, this is stated: “doth not a margin do well to admonish the reader to seek further, and not to conclude or dogmatize upon this or that peremptorily? For it is a fault of incredulity, to doubt of those things that are evident; so to determine of such things as the Spirit of God hath left (even in the judgment of the judicious) questionable, can be no less than presumption.” The 1611 preface also noted that “diversity of signification and sense in the margin, where the text is not so clear, must needs do good, yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded.”

According to the large number of marginal notes in the 1611 edition, its makers must have found many places where they considered the text not to be so clear in its meaning. The makers of the KJV gave many more word-for-word, literal renderings in their marginal notes, and they also offered many acceptable, alternative renderings. In some marginal notes, they provided examples of where they gave no English word/rendering for an original-language word of Scripture in their underlying texts. These marginal notes clearly contradict any suggestion that all their translation decisions should be considered certain and unquestionable. The marginal notes could also raise doubt concerning some of their textual criticism decisions.

The 1611 preface noted: “They that are wise, had rather have their judgment at liberty in differences of readings, than to be captivated to one, when it may be the other.”

 

You bear false witness or judge unrighteous judgment as you improperly put words in my mind and mouth that are not mine.

I have nowhere suggested nor preached the ideas for which you falsely accuse me. I have not advocated nor recommended the Critical Text. I have not advocated nor approved the making of over 100 English Bibles.

I have clearly noted the truth that only a small number [perhaps 6 to 12] English Bibles are widely distributed and possibly widely read, and that does not lead to the conclusion that I recommend and approve of all of them. The number of English Bibles being read today may be parallel to the number of English Bibles being read in the late 1500's and early 1600's.

You have failed to demonstrate that you apply the same exact measures/standards to the inconsistent translation decisions involved in the making of the KJV as you try to apply inconsistently to other English Bibles.

Would a consistent, just application of KJV-only reasoning suggest that the KJV is not authoritative in any places where it does not strictly adhere to word-for-word translating, where it does not give an English word for an original language word, where it gives what could be considered a dynamic equivalent rendering and not the exact equivalent, where it changed the form or part of speech of original-language words, and where it added to the word of God the words the translators thought were implicit in the original-language words?
Would KJV defenders suggest that the KJV translators did not translate what God explicitly said in those cases where they did not translate word-for-word, did not show all words, did not give an English word for an original language word, did not preserve the same word order, or added words in English for which there were no original-language words of Scripture?
How could the KJV preserve every original language word of Scripture when it is a fact that it provides no English word for some of them?
Is the foundation of Scripture weakened by the fact that the KJV translators did not translate word-for-word literally or changed the form of words in many places?
Is the foundation of Scripture weakened by the fact that the KJV translators provided multiple-word translations in English when there was one original-language word thousands of times and provided only one word in English when there were multiple words in the original languages?
Would a consistent, just application of KJV-only allegations against the NKJV in effect maintain that the KJV cannot properly be called a word-for-word translation and an every-word Bible?
Do KJV defenders in effect paint themselves into a corner if they refuse to apply their very own assertions and their own stated principles or measures consistently and justly?
If KJV defenders will not apply their own set of criteria or own measures concerning word-for-word translating consistently and justly to the KJV, does that indicate use of the fallacy of special pleading for the KJV?
Do KJV-only advocates seem to refuse to teach themselves what they attempt to teach others (Rom. 2:21)?
Will KJV defenders think soundly and seriously about their very own assertions and claims and then answer valid questions based on a consistent, just application of them?

Clear, direct answers to these thought-provoking questions would point out inconsistencies and serious problems with human KJV-only reasoning/teaching.

 

My teaching concerning the Scriptures is from the Scriptures. I provide the scripture references for my scripturally-based points concerning the Scriptures.

Your repeating the same incorrect claim or accusation does not make it become true.

Human exclusive only claims for the KJV do not come from the Scriptures. You add to the Scriptures or read into the Scriptures human claims for the KJV that the Scriptures do not state and teach. You misapply verses that were not stated concerning the KJV.

 

The makers of the KJV presented the same basic view of Bible translations that I accept.

In the preface to the 1611 KJV entitled "The Translators to the Reader," Miles Smith favorably quoted Jerome as writing “that as the credit of the old books (he meaneth the Old Testament) is to be tried by the Hebrew volumes, so of the New by the Greek tongue, he meaneth the original Greek. Then Miles Smith presented the view of the KJV translators as follows: "If truth be to be tried by these tongues [Hebrew and Greek], then whence should a translation be made, but out of them? These tongues therefore, we should say the Scriptures, in those tongues, we set before us to translate, being the tongues in which God was pleased to speak to his church by his prophets and apostles." In this preface, Miles Smith wrote: “If you ask what they had before them, truly it was the Hebrew text of the Old Testament, the Greek of the New.” Lancelot Andrewes (1555-1626), a KJV translator, wrote: "Look to the original, as, for the New Testament, the Greek text; for the Old, the Hebrew" (Pattern of Catechistical Doctrine, p. 59).

Writing for all the translators, Miles Smith noted: “If anything be halting, or superfluous, or not so agreeable to the original, the same may be corrected, and the truth set in place.” Miles Smith observed: “No cause therefore why the word translated should be denied to be the word, or forbidden to be current, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it. For whatever was perfect under the sun, where apostles or apostolike men, that is, men indued with an extraordinary measure of God’s Spirit, and privileged with the privilege of infallibility, had not their hand? The Romanists therefore in refusing to hear, and daring to burn the word translated, did no less then despite the Spirit of grace, from whom originally it proceeded, and whose sense and meaning, as well as man’s weakness would enable, it did express.”

The KJV translators maintained that the preserved Scriptures in the original languages were the standard and authority for the making and trying of all Bible translations. They suggested that no Bible translation would be perfect and that any imperfections and blemishes in them could be corrected by the standard of the preserved Scriptures in the original languages. They clearly maintained that Bible translations were not made by the same miracle of inspiration that occurred in the supernatural way that the original-language Scriptures were directly given to the prophets and apostles. They maintained that imperfect English Bible translations should still be accepted as the word of God in English, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be in them.

Do you suggest that the makers of the KJV approached the Scriptures through human wisdom?
Would you suggest that the makers of the KJV were deceived and that the truth was hidden from them?

 

You fail to prove your accusation to be true, and you fail to demonstrate that you judge righteous judgment.

Are you likewise suggesting that you endorse the paraphrases and dynamic equivalent renderings in the KJV by your silence?

Glenn Conjurske, who is a defender of the KJV and a critic of modern English versions and who admits his own bias for the KJV, acknowledged: “I grant that there is too much paraphrasing in the King James Version, more especially in the Old Testament. But even this may be excused, at least in part” (Olde Paths, October, 1997, p. 236; Bible Version, p. 230). Perhaps because of his love and bias for the KJV, Glenn Conjurske maintained that “it was proper—or at any rate excusable—to retain a certain amount of paraphrase from the older versions” (Ibid.). Glenn Conjurske claimed: “Much of the paraphrasing in the King James Version is retained from Tyndale and Coverdale” (Ibid.). Even though he is critical of the NKJV, Glenn Conjurske admitted: “The New King James Version has doubtless removed some paraphrasing which was in the old version” (Ibid.; Bible Version, p. 231). Would an admission of some paraphrasing [or dynamic equivalents] in the pre-1611 English Bibles and in the KJV be a serious problem for inconsistent, unjust KJV-only reasoning?

KJV defender Bruce Lackey observed: “Let us not condemn something simply because it is a paraphrase; in so doing, we would have to condemn certain portions of the New Testament” (Can You Trust Your Bible, p. 40). Concerning those NT portions, Bruce Lackey noted: “Occasionally, an Old Testament portion will be paraphrased, or given a free rendering, or only certain portions will be used” (p. 39). Bruce Lackey asserted: “We must see from the New Testament usage that God’s truth may be expressed in more than one set of words” (p. 14).

Does your silence concerning the stated view of the KJV translators demonstrate your unrighteous judgments?

 

You have failed to prove any deception on my part. I did not claim that the entire KJV is a paraphrase, but there are examples of paraphrasing in the KJV.

If you are trying to suggest that the KJV is completely a word-for-word translation, you would be the one misleading or deceiving readers since it is not.

How is every individual preserved original-language word of Scripture actually kept intact and unchanged in the KJV when the 1611 KJV changed them to different words and even gave no English word for some of them as the KJV translators themselves clearly acknowledged in some of their marginal notes?

How would giving no English word for a Hebrew word found in a verse or a Greek word found in a verse be taking every inspired word and giving an accurate translation of that word and be preserving that word in English?

Would Waite and other KJV defenders in effect suggest that the KJV subtracts from God’s words, eliminates what God has explicitly stated, or adopted “the diabolical principle of subtraction” (Defending the KJB, p. 91) when it does not give an English translation for a noun in the KJV’s underlying Hebrew Old Testament text or for a noun in the Greek New Testament text as they would do concerning the NKJV?
If the KJV translators did not give an English word for some preserved original language words of Scripture found in their underlying texts, would that suggest that the English-speaking believer has no assurance that he can read every word of God in the KJV?

Would a consistent, just application of your stated reasoning suggest that the KJV is not authoritative in any places where it does not strictly adhere to word-for-word translating, where it does not give an English word for an original language word, where it gives what could be considered a dynamic equivalent rendering and not the exact equivalent, where it changed the form or part of speech of original-language words, and where it added to the word of God the words the translators thought were implicit in the original-language words?

Would you in effect suggest that the KJV translators did not translate what God explicitly said in those cases where they did not translate word-for-word, did not show all words, did not give an English word for an original language word, did not preserve the same word order, or added words in English for which there were no original-language words of Scripture?

How could the KJV preserve every original language word of Scripture when it is a fact that it provides no English word for many of them?

Is the foundation of Scripture weakened by the fact that the KJV translators did not translate word-for-word literally or changed the form of words in many places?

Is the foundation of Scripture weakened by the fact that the KJV translators provided multiple-word translations in English when there was one original-language word thousands of times and provided only one word in English when there were multiple words in the original languages?

Would a consistent, just application of KJV-only allegations against the NKJV in effect maintain that the KJV cannot properly be called a word-for-word translation and an every-word Bible?

Do KJV defenders in effect paint themselves into a corner if they refuse to apply their very own assertions and their own stated principles or measures consistently and justly?

If KJV defenders will not apply their own set of criteria or own measures concerning word-for-word translating consistently and justly to the KJV, does that indicate use of the fallacy of special pleading for the KJV?

Do KJV-only advocates seem to refuse to teach themselves what they attempt to teach others (Rom. 2:21)?

 

Logos, you might get more people reading your replies if you didn't write 1500 word essays every time you post. Do you seriously sit down and write all that, or are you Mr. copy and paste? I think the latter.

 

Logos1560 actually responds with well thought out responses that are worth reading in the context of the discussion.

Can he help it it JD731 thinks reasonable, well thought out responses need “warning” labels.

WARNING: EVIDENCE BASED REASONING CAN BE DANGEROUS TO YOUR BIASES.

Rob

 

Well, he's the king of copy and paste, and has been for years. I also think he has a very weird and unhealthy obsession with the whole KJV issue. I find him completely boring. I would venture to say most don't read his entire posts. I find him to be a really weird guy, which is why I ignore him. You may be impressed with him, I'm not. I think he has some issues

 

That's to bad. You can learn alot from his post's. If you could comprehend them, you could escape the errors of KJVOnlyism.

 

I used to read his posts years ago. What I've learned from reading them is that he is one strange character. And I also believe he has some issues and is obsessed with the King James version only topic. He posts on numerous Christian forums and has for years on this topic. It seems to be all he does. I find that really really strange and that's why I think it's best to just ignore him. If the King James only issue went away the poor guy wouldn't even have a life. That's sad....... and weird.

 

This is the "Bible Versions & Translations" forum. His post's are full of information about Reformation and pre Reformation Bibles, including how the 1611 KJV was made. Full of historic fact filled information.

 

Glad you're a fan of his. I think he's weird myself. It's just unhealthy his obsession with the topic. Everything he posts can be found on the Internet by anyone looking. He's not some KJV guru. You all can be in awe of him. I can do without his weirdness, thank you. I think he needs to get a life.

 

Name one person on this forum who knows more about the KJV than him.

 

That's my point! He's obsessed with it! Weirdly so! Besides anything and everything he posts on here could be found on the internet, so I'm not impressed. I'm not sure he knows more about the King James version than anybody else. I just think he's the king of copying and pasting other people's material. I hope you really don't believe that all the things that he posts, those long essays, you think that he wrote them himself? I got a bridge in Arizona to sell you then. Also as Barney Fife would say....... I think he's a nut!