Alan Dale Gross
Active Member
True. THANK YOU. Thank you, for calling out Satan himself. Do so all you want.
Reference: Doctrinal Superiority vs 'Most Ancient Texts' leaning towards the NWT.
True. THANK YOU.
True. THANK YOU.
True. THANK YOU.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Is Satan A Real Entity Who Can Influence English Language Translators and Subtlety Impact Their Translations
- Thread starter JD731
- Start date
David Lamb
Well-Known Member
I agree with most of that (I say "most" because I don't know anything about the new easy reader Bibles" you mentioned. I don't know which ones they are, as you didn't say, so I cannot know whether I agree with that part or not.)
He exists.
It is true universally. This is why people often say "words have meanings".
Spiritual truths are not hidden in words chosen by God. They are truths that are spiritual being communicated through words chosen by God and received by those who are born of the Spirit.
For example, "love your enemies" are words communicating that command. It is more than words just strung along to make sounds. Everybody can understand those words, but not everybody can understand the depth of spiritual truth in those words (as Christians we know the command is far more significant than simply love people who are your enemies).
I disagree that numerous translations are useless. For example, the HCSV does a far better job with John 3:16 than does the KJV (it specifically defines "thusly" in a way that makes the Greek word God chose to use clear where the KJV is ambitious). Most other translations maintained the KJV language because the verse was so well known. So referencing multiple legitimate translations can and does help study Scripture.
Does your post avoid and ignore the fact that the Church of England makers of the KJV borrowed many renderings from the 1582 Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament?
First-hand testimony and evidence from one of the KJV translators would acknowledge or affirm the use of the 1582 Rheims NT in the making of the KJV.
Ward Allen observed: "At Col. 2:18, he [KJV translator John Bois] explains that the [KJV] translators were relying up on the example of the Rheims Bible" (Bois, Translating for King James, pp. 10, 62-63). The note of John Bois cited a rendering from the 1582 Rheims [“willing in humility”] and then cited the margin of the Rheims [“willfull, or selfwilled in voluntary religion”] ( p. 63). Was the KJV’s rendering “voluntary” borrowed from the margin of the 1582 Rheims? W. F. Moulton stated: "The Rhemish Testament was not even named in the instructions furnished to the translators, but it has left its mark on every page of their work" (History of the English Bible, p. 207). Ward Allen maintained that "the Rheims New Testament furnished to the Synoptic Gospels and Epistles in the A. V. as many revised readings as any other version" (Translating the N. T. Epistles, p. xxv). Ward Allen and Edward Jacobs claimed that the KJV translators "in revising the text of the synoptic Gospels in the Bishops' Bible, owe about one-fourth of their revisions, each, to the Genevan and Rheims New Testaments" (Coming of the King James Gospels, p. 29). About 1 Peter 1:20, Ward Allen noted: “The A. V. shows most markedly here the influence of the Rheims Bible, from which it adopts the verb in composition, the reference of the adverbial modifier to the predicate, the verb manifest, and the prepositional phrase for you” (Translating for King James, p. 18). Concerning 1 Peter 4:9, Allen suggested that “this translation in the A. V. joins the first part of the sentence from the Rheims Bible to the final phrase of the Protestant translations” (p. 30).
KJV defender Laurence Vance admitted that the 1582 “Rheims supplies the first half of the reading” in the KJV at Galatians 3:1 and that the “Rheims supplies the last half of the reading” at Galatians 3:16 (Making of the KJV NT, p. 263). J. R. Dore wrote: "A very considerable number of the Rhemish renderings, which they introduced for the first time, were adopted by the revisers of King James's Bible of 1611" (Old Bibles, p. 303). Charles Butterworth observed that the Rheims version "recalled the thought of the [KJV] translators to the Latin structure of the sentences, which they sometimes preferred to the Greek for clarity's sake, thus reverting to the pattern of Wycliffe or the Coverdale Latin-English Testaments, and forsaking the foundation laid by Tyndale" (Literary Lineage of the KJV, p. 237). James Carleton noted: "One cannot but be struck by the large number of words which have come into the Authorized Version from the Vulgate through the medium of the Rhemish New Testament" (Part of Rheims in the Making of the English Bible, p. 32).
A few renderings that the makers of the KJV may have borrowed from the 1582 Rheims include “austere” (Luke 19:21), “malefactors” (Luke 23:19), “malefactor” (John 18:30), “vesture: (John 19:24), “clemency” (Acts 24:4), “principal” (Acts 25:23), “malignity” (Rom. 1:29), “emulation” (Rom. 11:14), “illuminated” (Heb. 10:32), seduce (1 John 2:26), and incense (Rev. 8:3).
Is Satan A Real Entity Who Can Influence English Language Translators and Subtlety Impact Their Translations
The early leaders and founders of that Movement were on a whole far superior to Pentacostal/Chasamatics teachers and theology, especially far superior to the heretical WoF Movement
can you show to me any verse in the Bible that stated that the Holy Spirit can ONLY bring illumination to just the 1611 Kjv?
God is a Trinity
Bible inspired by and from the Holy Spirit to us
Second Coming in the future
Physical Resurrection of the saved in Christ
Pauline Justification
We do not have any inerrant and perfect translations, even the 1611 translators included variant readings in their foot notes and in margins
The nas/Esv/Nkjv are all just as much the word of God to us in English as the 1611 Kjv, till very word of God
The scholars behind the Modern Versions had NO plan to replace the kjv , as they ALL held to it being a very good translation, but sought to improve upon it, and making it easier as now in contemporary Englsh, same reasons the 1611 used for translating their version
You would do MUCH better to give to us what CHRISTIAN scholars have stated about the Kjv being a good translation, but needing to be revised now and updated to modern terminology
Well said!
If your expected answer is yes on this, how can you be sure that he did not influence the 1611 translators then?
Alan Dale Gross
Active Member
"There have been many versions of the Holy Scriptures since the KING JAMES VERSION was published but not one committee of these versions has suffered for their faith except the committee of the KING JAMES VERSION. Some were imprisoned or threatened with imprisonment. Many if not all had loved ones or friends who had gone to the stake or endured banishment or prison terms. Why? Because they believed the Bible to be the Very Word of the Living God and "loved not their lives unto the death." This fact speaks volumes, Such men had convictions and held the Bible in reverence and awe and thus handled it and translated it with the greatest care and precision, knowing they must give an account before the Judgement Seat of Christ some day.
"You see, God knew what He was doing - as He always does - in the timing of the production of this greatest masterpiece in all English literature. It was brought into being before mankind was cursed with telephones, radios or televisions. They had time to think and meditate and spend Year after year (as one did) in the Cambridge Library from 4 o’clock in the morning until 8 o’clock in the evening studying the Greek language. Lancelot Andrewes, the chairman of the overall committee, was fluent in twenty different languages, the greatest linguist of his day, and spent five hours a day in prayer.
"The Holy Spirit also had His hand on William Tyndale, choosing him for his remarkable ability as a linguist. His native tongue was English but he was perfectly at home in eight different languages, according to the record. He studied under Erasmus, the greatest scholar of that age or any age. The genius of Rotterdam was courted by kings was offered the cardinal’s hat by the pope, which he refused, and was used of God to bring into being the Textus Receptus in which the KING JAMES VERSION is founded. Tyndale’s English was so perfect in his Translation that the committee chosen by King James used well over sixty percent of it with little or no change in the wording. Had they used their own style, it is said, it would never have endured for three centuries.
"We do not say the King James Version is infallible. There are changes that could be and should be profitably made, but we do say and with emphasis, there are no errors found therein. The four or five thousand extant Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, in whole or in part, agree in ninety to ninety-five percent of their contents with the text of Erasmus, while the Greek text of Westcott and Hort, founded as it was on two of the worst manuscripts, Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, is filled with errors and contradictions as of necessity it must have been with such a shaky, unstable, inaccurate foundation.
"No age in the history of the Christian church, until ours, has witnessed such a sustained, Satanic assault on God’s Holy Word. The versions, perversions, and paraphrases of the Scriptures increase constantly. Some of these are worthwhile and profitable; others are deliberate attacks upon God’s Holy Word. One does not need to understand Greek or Hebrew to learn which is the pure Word of God. Use the KING JAMES VERSION as the criterion and test any questionable passage in any other version by the KING JAMES VERSION. If it doesn’t pass the test and agree with it, then discard the questionable passage and keep to the Authorised Version."
That actually is a most prudent and appropriate procedure for ensuring the viability of what the product you have proclaims to be.
The KJV was here first, and to not use the method of comparison with it as a predecessor is not wise.
Of course, the founding principle of all modern bibles is not to consider that the Bible has been PRESERVED, so they will continue to be sure that they write what they want to have in them, claiming they had to 'reconstruct' it. That's simply a Satanic lie, along with much of the other processes used.
From:
A Comparison
of the
New American Standard Version (NASV)
with the
Authorised King James Bible (KJB)
Edited by David Otis Fuller
This has a hundred or more differences between these two.
A Comparison
of the
New American Standard Version (NASV)
with the
Authorised King James Bible (KJB)
Edited by David Otis Fuller
This has a hundred or more differences between these two.
Last edited:
Alan Dale Gross
Active Member
This could be done if it was needed. Learning vintage expressions in words that have been preserved in a special application is needed.
Where is the evidence that the Church of England makers of the KJV "suffered for their faith"? Which of the KJV translators were actually imprisoned for their faith? If any of them suffered for their faith, they did not learn more that experience not to persecute others for their faith. Perhaps David Otis Fuller or you are mixing up the KJV translators with the translators of the Geneva Bible who did suffer for their faith. The committee of the Geneva Bible translators suffered for their faith.
Do you ignore and avoid the fact that many "suffered for their faith" at the hand of several of the KJV translators who were members of the High Commission Court that persecuted others for their beliefs?
KJV translators George Abbot and Lancelot Andrewes were two of the Church of England divines who urged the burning at the stake of Bartholomew Legate in March of 1611 (Paine, Men Behind the KJV, p. 142). George Abbot even presided over the proceedings (Ibid., p. 93). The Dictionary of National Biography pointed out that Legate and Edward Wightman were brought before the court of George Abbot and that "Abbot was from the first resolved that no mercy should be shown them" (p. 11). This reference work also pointed out that "Abbot was constantly in attendance in the high commission court and tried to enforce conformity in the church with consistent love of order" (Ibid., p. 18). Lancelot Andrewes was also a member of the infamous Court of High Commission and the Court of Star Chamber (Sermons, p. xxi). William Pierce maintained that Andrewes had been “one of the agents in carrying out of Whitgift’s oppressive system and especially as a press censor” (Historical Introduction, p. 127).
While he worked on the KJV, Thomas Ravis "was highly active as a hated scourge," harassing and persecuting those who would not fully submit to the Church of England (Paine, Men Behind the KJV, p. 93). Alexander McClure also noted that the prelate Thomas Ravis was "a fierce persecutor of the Puritans" (KJV Translators Revived, p. 150). Geddes MacGregor observed that Ravis “swore to oust those whose Puritan leanings made them reluctant to conform” (Literary History, p. 200). Bishop Thomas Bilson, who helped edit and revise the final draft of the KJV, also "carried on the holy warfare" against the Puritans and insisted that they wear the surplice and hood (Paine, Men Behind the KJV, p. 96). Thomas Smith also confirmed that Bilson "treated the Puritans with uncommon severity" (Select Memoirs, p. 322). Along with KJV translators Lancelot Andrewes, George Abbot, Thomas Ravis, co-editor Thomas Bilson, and Archbishop Richard Bancroft, other KJV translators were also members of the High Commission Court and Star Chamber that persecuted professed believers. Roland Usher's list of the commissions in the province of Canterbury included KJV translators John Bois, Arthur Lake, John Layfield, Nicolas Love, James Montague, John Overall, Sir Henry Savile, Miles Smith, and Giles Thompson (Rise and Fall of the High Commission, pp. 345-359).
In a treatise presented to King James in 1614, Leonard Busher, a Baptist, stated: "Those bishops which persuade the king and Parliament to burn, banish, and imprison for difference of religion are bloodsuckers and manslayers" (Goadby, Bye-Paths, p. 57; Underhill, Tracts, pp. 38-39). Leonard Busher also wrote: "They cannot be Christ's bishops and preachers that persuade princes and peoples to such antichristian tyranny and cruelty" (Plea, p. 27; Cramp, Baptist History, p. 293; Underhill, Tracts, p. 60). Leonard Busher added that the bishops showed clearly by their persecutions that "their doctrine is not good, and that they want [lack] the word and Spirit of God" (Cramp, p. 293). Busher noted that "persecution for religion is to force the conscience; and to force and constrain men and women's consciences to a religion against their wills, is to tyrannize over the soul, as well as over the body" (Tracts, p. 34). Busher maintained that "the bishops in forcing men and women's consciences do therein play the antichrist, as well as the popes" (Ibid., p. 35). J. Newton Brown noted that during the reign of King James that "bishops were still found who determined to persecute the Baptists even to death" (Memorials of Baptist Martyrs, p. 240). John Jeffcoat III confirmed that “the Church of England continued to persecute Protestants throughout the 1600’s” (www.Greatsite.com).
Alan Dale Gross
Active Member
Only you could try to make a problem out of these austere masterstrokes of the English language used in the KJV, by the King James translators.
David Otis Fuller seems to have been misinformed concerning the KJV translators.
While the persecution of Puritans was not as severe during part of the time of George Abbot, who had been a KJV translator, as Archbishop as it had been under Archbishop Richard Bancroft, it did not completely end. The High Commission Court still remained. Under Abbot, Robert Dale maintained that “clergymen who omitted the ceremonies were still silenced, and Separatists were still thrown into prison, and kept without trial; but the vigor with which offenders had been hunted down by Bancroft ceased” (History, p. 211). James Miall also noted: “In the meantime, but less vigorously after the death of Bancroft, the severities against the Puritans continued” (Footsteps, p. 85). J. B. Marsden reported that Puritan Arthur Hildersham was summoned before the High Commission Court in 1612 and suspended (History, p. 287). Marsden noted in 1615 Hildersham was again before the High Commission and for refusing the oath exofficio was committed to Fleet Prison (Ibid.). Alexander Drysdale noted that “Hildersham was repeatedly suspended, fined, imprisoned, and even excommunicated” (History, p. 241). When Bishop of Gloucester Miles Smith [KJV translator with Puritan leanings] is said to have neglected some matters, King James I made William Laud Dean of Gloucester in 1616 and permitted Laud to take actions of which Miles Smith disapproved.
The Dictionary of National Biography noted in a case involving Puritan clergyman Edmund Peacham that [KJV translator] George Abbot "approved the use of torture" (I, p. 11). George Perry asserted that for his answer to a request for benevolence, Peacham was thrown into the Tower and his study searched. George Perry reported: “Peacham was indicted of treason, for divers treasonable passages in a sermon which was never preached, nor intended to be preached, but only set down in writings and found in his study” (History, I, p. 226). George Perry stated that “Peacham was examined ‘before torture, in torture, between torture, and after torture’” (Ibid., p. 227). William Urwick maintained that “James condemned to the scaffold, after torturing, the white-haired Old Puritan, Peacham, once a Hertfordshire minister, who died before the sentence was executed” (Nonconformity in Herts, p. 121).
In his history of English Baptists published in 1871, J. J. Goadby described King James I as "the meanest and most despicable sovereign that ever held an English sceptre" (Bye-Paths in Baptist History, p. 80). He described how James I dealt roughly with Baptists. Another history of English Baptists by Thomas Crosby also told how King James and his state church persecuted Baptists with fines, imprisonments, dispossessions of property, beatings, expulsions, and even burning at the stake. S. H. Ford wrote that "almost canonized head of the Episcopal Church [King James] thus, in the name of Christ, authorized poor Wightman's death" (Origin of the Baptist, p. 21). Phil Stringer observed that Wightman was burned at the stake "for declaring that baptism of infants was an abominable custom" or "for being a Baptist" (Faithful Baptist Witness, p. 7). William Cutter wrote: “Edward Wightman, ancestor of the American family, was condemned to death and burned at the stake, April 11, 1611, because of his Baptist faith” (New England Families, Vol. 1, p. 36). Cathcart's Baptist Encyclopedia noted that King James treated Baptists with "royal barbarity" (p. 75). J. W. Griffith observed that King James and his government "vigorously tried to prevent the preaching of Baptists, driving them into hiding, imprisoning their ministers and deacons and sometimes entire congregations, imposing enormous and ruinous fines on those arrested for unlawful assembly and preaching" (Manual of Church History, III, p. 84). J. M. Cramp contented that Baptists suffered severely during the reign of James I (Baptist History, p. 260). Timothy Fellows noted that the Puritans rejected the KJV "because it was dedicated to a wicked king" (God Hath Spoken, p. 130).