Featured KJVO is alive and well here at the BB

. You are one weird guy.

 

There is nothing weird in stating the truth. The response did create a bogus strawman distortion that was nothing like what I actually stated.

 

MOD NOTE: Whether true or not, this is a too over-the-top in terms of character assassination. It's been edited.

I can deal with other posters different opinions or viewpoints but sir, ....... My last comment to you.

 

Perhaps you don't like people who post facts, evidence and real logic. Maybe that is what bothers you about his posts. Maybe you have never been able to prove him wrong? He is correct a lot don't you know?

 

It has nothing to do with his right or wrong! It's his obsession that worries me. I work in the mental health field and I've seen people like him and trust me he has a problem.

 

You do not like him because he speaks against kjvonlyism. He is an expert at Bible history, especially historical Bibles. He aways uses facts that onlyism can't truly answer.

 

You couldn't be more wrong. It has nothing to do with his information, it has to do with his obsession. You're constantly sticking up for him. I'm not impressed with his copy and paste diatribe. I'm happy for you if you are. As I said, I work in the mental health field and I have worked with people just like him. He has all the symptoms. However, jealous of him I am not, nor do I dislike him. I find him a very odd individual who needs to get a life apart from the King James Version Only issue, which seems to be the only life he has. That's a mental illness my friend. I could care less about the King James Only Version only issue, it has nothing to do with my reaction to him. You carry on with your defense of him. I'll continue to worry about him. I do have a life apart from these forums, so I'll bid you adieu.

 

Perhaps a certain poster should worry about their own seeming obsession with opposing the stating of the truth concerning non-scriptural KJV-onlyism. Nothing factually incorrect or non-true was pointed out in the posts to which they unsoundly objected.

 

The Bible doctrine of salvation is affected and harmed by some aspects of KJV-only reasoning/teaching.

Just as Roman Catholics make salvation depend on their church, some KJV-only advocates attempt to make salvation depend on the KJV. KJV-only advocate Al Hughes acknowledged: "There is a movement afoot that claims 'no one can get saved by hearing one of the devil's perversions'" (Flaming Torch, Oct./Nov./Dec., 1999, p. 16). R. B. Ouellette noted: “Others took such extreme stands as alleging that only those led to Christ through the use of the King James Bible were actually saved” (More Sure Word, p. 4). Does this indicate an extreme to which human KJV-only reasoning can lead? Is not this extreme a logical consequence of the KJV-only claim that only the KJV is incorruptible seed?

Herb Evans, a KJV-only advocate, in an article "Did Our Inspired Bible Expire?" wrote: "Almost without exception (and we are not sure about the exceptions) any births, resulting from the above perverted bibles [English Bibles other than the KJV], are perverted also--spiritual cripples" (The Flaming Torch, January-March, 1992, p. 10). This unscriptural claim would make the Holy Spirit responsible for the new birth of spiritual cripples and perverts (John 3:5-8, 1 John 3:9, 5:4, Eph. 1:13, Titus 3:5). In Ruckman's Bible Believers' Bulletin, Herb Evans declared: "We have been born of incorruptible seed," and he claimed that this incorruptible seed is the 1611 KJV (October, 1978, p. 3). Peter Ruckman himself had claimed that “the AV was incorruptible in 1611, and it is incorruptible now” (Alexandrian Cult, Part Seven, p. 26). Michael O’Neal asserted: “I believe that this (the King James Bible) is incorruptible seed” (Do We Have the Word of God, p. 13). Al Lacy wrote: “It takes the INCORRUPTIBLE seed to give the New Birth” (Can I Trust, p. 98).

Jasper James Ray wrote: "Only an unaltered Bible can produce a perfect, soul-saving faith" (God Wrote Only One Bible, p. 10). J. J. Ray asserted: “If the Word is corrupt, then the resulting faith which comes from it will also be corrupt and without life-giving essentials” (Ibid.). J. J. Ray suggested that Bible translations in the other claimed stream of Bibles have “faith destroying contamination” (Ibid.). Al Lacy asked: “How can you be sure you are saved and going to Heaven if your translated Bible has errors?” (Can I Trust, p. 99). Al Lacy asserted: “If there is NO perfect translation … and if even the Masoretic Hebrew and Antiochan manuscript copies we have today have errors … THERE IS NO WAY ANYBODY COULD EVER GET SAVED” (p. 98). Al Lacy contended: “If there is no PERFECT, FLAWLESS, INERRANT, INSPIRED, INCORRUPTIBLE translation in English … then NOBODY who speaks only English can get saved” (Ibid.). Al Lacy declared: “If ANY BOOK that is called a ‘Bible’ has even ONE error in it, it is NOT the word of TRUTH! Therefore, it cannot bring about the New Birth” (p. 99). William Byers claimed: "I've said that I've never heard of a sound conversion coming from a modern translation" (The History of the KJB, p. 5). In his fundamentalist publication Church Bus News (July-Dec., 1993), Wally Beebe stated: "My constant reference to the King James Version, being in fact the inspired Word of God and our authority, is very important as a prerequisite to salvation" (p. 11). Jack Hyles, well-known fundamentalist pastor, wrote: "Then, if corruptible seed is used, one cannot be born again. I have a conviction as deep as my soul that every English-speaking person who has ever been born again was born of incorruptible seed; that is, the King James Bible" (Enemies of Soul Winning, p. 47). Jack Hyles also claimed: "This means that the New King James Bible is not precious seed because it is not incorruptible" (Ibid., p. 46). Jack Hyles noted: "If all a person has ever read is the Revised Standard Version, he cannot be born again, because corruptible seed is used" (Ibid., p. 47). Jack Hyles asserted: “The precious seed is the King James Bible, preserved for us word-for-word” (p. 136). In a recorded sermon, Jack Hyles stated: "The King James Bible is necessary for anybody to be saved in the English language."

Gail Riplinger claimed: "The new birth occurs from the KJV seed" (Which Bible is God's Word, p. 12). Gail Riplinger even seemed to imply that people may "receive a false salvation or a false spirit from reading them" [other translations instead of the KJV] (Ibid., p. 80). In his booklet entitled Another Bible Another Gospel, which is published by The Bible for Today, Robert Baker implied that other translations teach another gospel when he wrote: "Removing or adding to Jesus' words results in preaching 'another gospel'" (p. 5). Chick Salliby asked: "Will not a defective Bible produce a defective faith?" (If the Foundations Be Destroyed, p. 93). Raymond Blanton declared: "Faith is not produced in the heart of the sinner by a powerless perversion of God's Word" (The Perilous Times, June, 1995, p. 7). In another issue of his publication, Raymond Blanton also claimed: "No one is saved through counterfeit Bibles. The New American Standard Version, The Revised Standard Version, Good News for Modern Man, Amplied New Testament, NIV, etc., etc., are dead imitations and corruptions, and no one is saved through them" (Feb., 1997, p. 4). Norman Hopkins asserted: “There is no need to memorize scripture in the new versions or go on visitation with one, for there is no convicting power in altered scripture” (Right Bible, p. 17). Douglas Stauffer wrote: "Our relationship with Jesus Christ is based upon a particular Bible translation" (One Book Stands, p. 97). David Norris claimed: “The new, deliberately ‘modernised’ versions of Scripture will necessarily present a changed or ‘updated’ Christ, another Jesus. A false bible presents a false Christ” (Big Picture, p. 184). James Rasbeary asserted: “The new versions are deader than doornails. They do not have any life. They do not speak to people with the voice of the Shepherd” (What’s Wrong, p. 122).

 

Who is this Al Hugh’s and why should anyone believe him?
And who is this RB Quellette that makes him so smart?
A parrot can say words. Quoting what these guys said means nothing more than the parrot.

Who is this Herb Evans and how many people is he speaking for. What else does he say about other subjects. Is he a Presbyterian. Is he in prison for murder. Who is this guy?

In Ruckman's Bible Believers' Bulletin, Herb Evans declared: "We have been born of incorruptible seed," and he claimed that this incorruptible seed is the 1611 KJV (October, 1978, p. 3). Peter Ruckman himself had claimed that “the AV was incorruptible in 1611, and it is incorruptible now” (Alexandrian Cult, Part Seven, p. 26). Michael O’Neal asserted: “I believe that this (the King James Bible) is incorruptible seed” (Do We Have the Word of God, p. 13).

Al Lacy
Jasper James Ray


Who are these two guys? Who follows them?

William Byers
Wally Beebe
Jack Hyles

I have never read anything these guys have said and I don't know where it is claimed they are spokesmen for anyone. I have read some things Jack Hyles has said and if you think his error concerning the KJV cannot be topped it is because you have not read some of his other stuff.

A woman theologian? Are you kidding me?

 

Continued from above:

Robert Baker
Chick Salliby
Raymond Blanton
Norman Hopkins
Douglas Stauffer
David Norris
James Rasbeary

Who are these guys and one liner quotes from them proves nothing without context. What if an evil individual deep mined quotes from you and had you saying things that you do not affirm? This is a wicked practice you are engaged in here.

I am a KJV only and you have not quoted me at all. The KJV believers I know and associate with believes what I believe about the Bible. They believe a Bible is not necessary for people to get saved. If you know anyone who is saved ask them if they got saved by reading a Bible. They will most likely say no. God has not designed that sinners get save with a paper and ink Bible present. It Pleased our Father to employ a preacher of the gospel of Jesus Christ preaching to sinners from his own experience and in his own words the wonderful salvation of God.

What good did a Bible do the Eunuch in Acts 8 without a preacher who had himself been saved? The name of Jesus Christ is not in Isa 53. Here is what Phillip told him and what he said.

Ac 8:37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

You may quote me on this. It is better to have a saved preacher on site when sinners are present than to have a Bible. When God charged Peter to go to Cornelius to preach the gospel to him, Peter had the gospel but he did not have a Bible. Jesus Christ had preached the Bible to the Jews for 3 1/2 years and it got him crucified and his resurrection convinced a paltry 3000 out of about a million who were in Jerusalem for the Feast of Weeks.

Don't tell me about Bibles in salvation. You have deep mined some people who have put out heretical teaching as if they speak for every one who believes God has the capacity, the unction, and the motivation to protect his own testimony from the people that you are energizing to destroy it.

1Co 2:1 And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God.

The Bible is the testimony of God to men. The gospel is the testimony of men who are saved to sinners.

1Ti 2:3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;
4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
6 Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.
7 Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and] lie not; a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity.
8 I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting.

I know what and who a Bible is for.

There are many people who are not KJVO who line up with perversions of your ideas but you are not lumping yourself as a heretic because of them. If you were consistent you would. You have a double standard and because of it I have a very low opinion of you as a person.

 

Many people read and follow the opinions of the KJV-only authors that were quoted.

Even some people who have not read their books may be accepting some of their KJV-only opinions and claims through KJV-only preachers that read their books and repeat their claims.

 

You fail to demonstrate any double standard on my part. I nowhere claimed nor suggested that all KJV-only advocates agree with what these KJV-only authors stated.

Perhaps you have a double standard by trusting blindly the textual criticism decisions, Bible revision decisions, and translation decisions of one exclusive group of Church of England critics in 1611 even though you would not accept their Church of England doctrinal views and their Church of England interpretations and understandings of their translation decisions. They understood the KJV to support and teach their Church of England doctrines. The KJV was the third authorized version of the Church of England.

 

Each person must give account of themselves to God. That is what we are told. We have all been warned.

 

In one of your posts you said the Anglican Church was hired to create a translation to advance Anglican Church doctrine. Can you give some specific examples of how they accomplished that in the AV?

 

In his dedication to King James I in the 1611 KJV, Bishop Thomas Bilson may have indicated possible Episcopal bias when he noted the “great hope” that the Church of England would reap “good fruit” from the translation.

1 Corinthians 12:28 in the 1611 edition would be one specific example. 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? Did Bishop Bilson not only have motive to support what he claimed in his 1593 book but also opportunity and authority to review and revise the translators' work according to the plan for its making? 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)?

 

Another specific example of where the 1611 KJV indicates bias for Episcopal church government is in Acts 14:23 where either the KJV translators, Bancroft, Bilson, or another prelate omitted the words "by election" found in Tyndale's New Testament, Coverdale's Bible, Matthew's Bible, Great Bible, Taverner's Bible, Jugge’s New Testament, Whittingham’s New Testament, Geneva Bible, and Bishops' Bible ("ordained them elders by election").

Henry Dexter noted: “So Acts 14:23 retained in the English versions, until the hand of Episcopal authority struck it out, the recognition of the action of the membership of the churches in the choice of their elders” (Hand-Book, p. 15, footnote 1). In his 1648 sermon entitled “Truth and Love,“ Thomas Hill maintained that Acts 14:23 was one of the fourteen places altered “to make them speak the language of the Church of England” (Six Sermons, p. 24). In 1733, John Currie asserted: “It was not the fault of our translators that the Version of this verse was altered, but it was done by some prelates afterward” (Full Vindication, p. 65). James Lillie maintained that “this [Acts 14:23] is a key-text on the subject of church-government” (Bishops, p. 18). In an article entitled “Did King James and his translators tamper with the truth of God as delivered by William Tyndale” in the Baptist Magazine for 1871 as edited by W. G. Lewis, the author asserted: “This all-important text [Acts 14:23] was mutilated and corrupted by James’s revisers, by leaving out the two words ’by election;’ and by changing congregation into church; thus representing the act as exclusively that of Paul and Barnabas, and as Whitgift and Bancroft said they were successors of the Apostles, they turned the text into a justification of their lordship over the congregations, besides leading the people to believe that the congregations of the Apostles were the same as the churches of the bishops” (p. 582). This article maintained “that James and his hierarchy committed a foul crime against God and man in their daring forgery on this text [Acts 14:23]” (p. 583). This article connected the change with the Church of England’s doctrine of apostolic succession.

On the fourth page of the preface to his 1641 book, Edward Barber referred to “the great wrong done in putting out some Scripture, as in Acts 14:23, where election is left out, by which means people are kept from knowing” (Small Treatise, p. iv). Concerning Acts 14:23 in his 1647 book, William Bartlett wrote: “The original reads it otherwise than the Translation [the KJV]: the Translation reads it ordained, but the Greek word is cheirotoneesantes, that is, they chose elders by the lifting up of the hands of the people, which is different from ordination, as coronation is from the election of a king” (Ichnographia, p. 36). In his 1659 book, Baptist William Jeffery (1616-1693) referred to Acts 14:23 and then stated: “where the word election is left out in the new translation, but it is in the old, and cannot be denied to be in the Greek” (Whole Faith, p. 98). In a sermon preached in 1776, David Somerville maintained that the translation or rendering in the KJV at Acts 14:23 “is unjust” (Miller, Biographical, p. 246).

In removing the two words “by election,” the 1582 Rheims New Testament could have been followed. Benjamin Hanbury quoted from the preface of A True, Modest, and Just Defence of the Petition for Reformation printed in 1618 [likely in Leiden] the following: “Acts 14:23 is thus translated, not only in the Genevan, but also in the former Church translation [Bishops’], ‘And when they had ordained them elders by election.‘ But the new translation, with the Rhemists, leave out the words ‘by election’! Why? It is not to be suffered that the people should have any hand in choosing their ministers; but the papal bishops must do all” (Historical Memorials, I, p. 131). The 1582 Rheims N. T. had an annotation on this verse [numbered verse 22 in Rheims] that complained about the early English Bibles’ rendering. The Rheims’ annotation stated: “The heretics, to make the world believe that all Priests ought to be chosen by the voices of the people, and that they need no other Ordering or Consecration by Bishops, pressing the profane use of the Greek word more than the very natural signification requireth and Ecclesiastical use beareth, translate, Ordained by election. Whereas in deed this word in Scripture signifeth ordering by imposition of hands, as is plain by other words equivalent (Acts 6:13, 1 Tim. 4:5, 2 Tim. 1) where the ordering of deacons, Priests, and others is called Imposition of hands: not of the people, but of the Apostles” (p. 242). William Fulke cited Roman Catholic Gregory Martin as writing: “for ‘ordaining elders by election,‘ they should have said, ‘ordaining or making priests by imposition of hands’” (Defence, pp. 247-248). Did the KJV translators or the prelate who omitted “by election” accept the Roman Catholic interpretation that this Greek word referred to “laying on of hands” for consecration to ecclesiastical offices?

In agreement with the Roman Catholic view, Thomas Bilson, co-editor of the KJV, asserted that the Greek word at Acts 14:23 signifieth “imposition of hands” and “not to ordain by election of the people, as some men of late had new framed the text” (Perpetual Government of Christ‘s Church, p. 13). Bilson maintained that the Greek word “with all Greek councils, fathers, and stories, is ’to ordain by laying on of hands‘” (p. 120). Bilson quoted from Acts 14:23: “ordained elders in every church,” omitting the words “by election“ in the pre-1611 English Bibles (p. 188). The first-hand evidence from his own book would affirm that Bilson would have wanted the words “by election” removed, and even did remove the words once when he quoted from the verse. Bilson claimed that Acts 14:23 “is the only place of the New Testament that can be brought to make any show for the popular elections of elders” (p. 137). KJV translator Lancelot Andrewes contended that “the apostles ordained priests by imposition of hands in every church, Acts 14:23” (Pattern, p. 355). Do KJV-only advocates agree with the view of Bilson and Andrewes?

 

Another specific example would involve one of the claimed 14 changes by Archbishop Bancroft or another prelate involved Acts 19:37. In his 1671 book, Whiston identified Acts 19:37 [robbers of Churches, for robbers of the temple] as one of the fourteen changes (Life, p. 49). Jack Lewis pointed out that “undue prelate influence has been seen in the phrase ‘robbers of churches’” (English Bible, p. 62). In his book recommended by some KJV-only advocates and printed by D. A. Waite, Alexander McClure wrote: "Bancroft, that he might for once stick the name [church] to a material building, would have it applied, in the nineteenth chapter of Acts, to the idols' temples! 'Robbers of churches' are strictly, according to the word in the original, temple-robbers; and particularly, in this case, such as might have plundered the great temple of Diana at Ephesus. Let us be thankful that the dictatorial prelate tried his hand no farther at emending the sacred text" (KJV Translators Revived, p. 221).

Henry Fox asserted: “As an instance of his emendations we may note the 37th verse of the 18th chapter of the Acts. The words which the translators had quite correctly translated ‘robbers of temples,‘ Bancroft altered into ‘robbers of churches,‘ in order to furnish a Scripture precedent for the word ‘church’ being applied to a material building” (On the Revision, pp. 7-8). John R. Beard claimed: “That he might for once stick the name church to a material building, he insisted on its being applied, in the nineteenth chapter of Acts, verse thirty-seven, to idols’ temples--‘neither robbers of churches,‘ in the original ‘temple-robbers’” (A Revised English Bible, p. 87). Silas Shepard asserted that Bancroft “compelled them to translate hierosulous (Acts 19:37), ‘robbers of churches,‘ when he knew that the word meant robbers of temples, or temple robbers, and that it referred to heathen temples. This gave authority for calling houses for religious convocations churches. So, by a false translation of one passage, he laid a foundation for English prelacy, and by the same violence to the Word of God, he transferred the name of a congregation to the house in which they convened” (British Millennial Harbinger, Vol. VIII, p. 75; The Reviser, 1855, p. 58).

Was it a prelate’s goal to render faithfully the meaning of the Greek word at this verse or was his goal something else?

In his commentary on Acts, J. A. Alexander asserted that “robbers of churches is a Christian phrase put into the mouth of a heathen” (p. 217). Marvin Vincent maintained that “the A. V. puts a droll anachronism into the mouth of the town-clerk of a Greek city” (Word Studies, I, p. 557). In his book about Acts, H. A. Ironside commented that “the word should be ‘temples,’ for the word ‘church,’ of course, as we know it today was not known to them” (p. 460). KJV-only author David Cloud’s Concise KJB Dictionary acknowledged that “in one passage, Acts 19:37, the Greek word hierosulos, meaning ‘a robber of a sacred place,’ is translated ‘church’” (p. 18).

 

The KJV could be properly considered to have strengthened Episcopal church government views with its renderings at 1 Timothy 3:10 and 13.

Ross Purdy asserted: “We see this agenda of promoting ecclesiastical rule foisted on us twice more in 1 Timothy 3:10 and 13” (I Will Have One Doctrine, p. 60). Gail Riplinger quoted W. E. Vine as charging “the KJV with ‘ecclesiastical bias’ when it uses the term ‘office’ of a deacon” (Hazardous Materials, p. 472). Herbert Lockyer observed that deacons “were not regarded as being in office, (the phrase, ‘the office of a deacon’ 1 Timothy 3:10, is one word, meaning ‘to serve’” (All the Doctrines, p. 246). Concerning 1 Timothy 3:10, George Bush claimed: “In this instance ‘the office of a deacon’ is wholly imaginary; in the original it is, let them serve, or be in service” (Priesthood and Clergy, p. 70). George Bush contended that “the two pompous nouns substantive, ‘the office of a deacon’ when examined by the original, turn out to be phantoms of the translators, introduced into the text to take the place of a verb expressing quite another thought” (Ibid.). George Bush also maintained that this rendering “is plainly a coinage of the translators” (p. 73). At 1 Timothy 3:10, the pre-1611 English Bibles, including the 1538 Coverdale’s New Testament and 1582 Rheims New Testament from the Latin, have the rendering “minister,” which the makers of the KJV altered and expanded to “use the office of a deacon.” What truth of the original demanded that this change or revision introducing an ecclesiastical term be made? Is it possible that this alteration introduced in the KJV to the pre-1611 English Bible connects to the 1611 edition’s content headings for Acts chapter 6 [“3 Appoint the office of Deaconship to seven chosen men”]? Is this contents heading at Acts 6 another example of episcopal bias in the 1611 KJV? The KJV itself usually translated the same Greek verb diakoneo used in these two verses as “minister” (8 times) or “serve” (7 times). The makers of the KJV had translated the same Greek verb as “serve” in Acts 6:2 while they in effect suggested a different understanding of it in their content heading for the chapter. The Latin Vulgate edition in the 1538 Coverdale’s Latin-English New Testament has the Latin verb ministrare at Acts 6:2. At 1 Timothy 3:10 in his commentary on the Pastoral Epistles, Gordon Clark has this rendering: “serve” (p. 60). The 1657 English translation of the Dutch Bible has “minister” at 1 Timothy 3:10. Ross Purdy maintained that “an honest translation of the Greek without bias” at 1 Timothy 3:10 would have the verb “serve” (I Will Have One Doctrine, p. 61). For the phrase “used the office of a deacon” that translates one Greek word at 1 Timothy 3:13, the 1611 KJV may have a more accurate rendering in its marginal note: “ministered.” There is no Greek word for office in these two verses. In his Lexicon, E. W. Bullinger defined the Greek word at these two verses as “to serve, render service” (p. 205).

The Greek noun rendered deacons in the KJV at 1 Timothy 3:8, 1 Timothy 3:12, and Philippians 1:1 is also translated “ministers” or “servants” in other places in the KJV. Four pre-1611 English Bibles [the 1535 Coverdale’s Bible, 1538 Coverdale’s New Testament, 1539 Great Bible, and 1568 Bishops’ Bible] even have the rendering “ministers” at 1 Timothy 3:8 while two pre-1611 English Bibles [1535 Coverdale’s and 1538 Coverdale’s] have it at 1 Timothy 3:12 and Philippians 1:1. John Beard claimed that the makers of the KJV “have created the notion that ‘minister,’ ‘servant,’ and ‘deacon’ represent very different realities, so that a ‘minister’ is not a ‘deacon,’ nor a ‘deacon’ a ‘minister,’ and that neither ‘minister’ nor ‘deacon’ is a ‘servant,’ whereas in the Scripture itself a ‘minister’ is a ‘deacon,’ because both are represented by the same Greek word, and that word denotes one who waits upon another, one who ministers to another, and one who serves another” (A Revised English Bible, p. 107). George Bush asserted that “tradition has separated the deacon and the minister, but in the New Testament they are one and the same word” (Priesthood and Clergy, p. 72). The Latin-based rendering “minister” came from the Latin Vulgate’s renderings such as ministri for the Greek word for servant. John Beard observed: “When Timothy himself is in the Greek called a deacon, then ‘deacon’ is rejected, and the translation ‘minister’ is preferred” (A Revised English Bible, p. 107). Did the KJV translators avoid translating the same Greek word that they had translated deacons in 1 Timothy 3:8 and 1 Timothy 3:12 as deacon when used of Timothy in 1 Timothy 4:6 in order to keep from calling into question his claimed prelatic office of bishop according to the postscript at the end of 2 Timothy in the 1611 edition of the KJV? Would referring to Timothy as a deacon have been a serious problem for Episcopal hierarchial church government views and for the Church of England’s view of deacons?

James Lillie maintained that “the Anglican deacon is not a scriptural deacon, but is the lowest grade of the hierarchy, while the apostolic deacon was a waiter or servant, as the very word signifies, but, being transferred, not translated, the meaning is covered up as in bishop” (Bishops, p. 179). Silas E. Shephard asserted: “We say that ‘deacon’ in the time of King James signified one of the inferior clergy, and for that reason is a false and sectarian translation” (British Millennial Harbinger, Vol. VIII, 1855, p. 77; The Reviser, 1855, p. 62). The content headings for Acts 8 in the 1611 edition [“the Church being placed in Samaria, by Philip the Deacon who preached, did miracles, and baptized many”] would be in line with the position of the deacon in the episcopal hierarchy. John R. Beard maintained that the makers of the KJV “retain this ecclesiastical term [deacon] only in the places where its retention may serve to support their own ecclesiastical system, by which the Christian ministry is made to consist of three orders, namely, bishop, priest, and deacon” (A Revised English Bible, p. 106). John G. Lorimer asserted that “the Church of Rome and the Church of England have considered the deaconship as an order—the first and the lowest in the priesthood” (The Deaconship, p. 11). It has sometimes been suggested that the deacon in the Church of England is half-priest and half-layman.

 

For a fifth specific example, some validly suggest an indication of possible subtle Episcopal bias in the KJV at Acts 20:28.

In his history of Baptists, D. B. Ray noted the following about Acts 20:28 in the KJV: "The word overseers in this passage is episcopous in the Greek--the word which is usually translated bishops; but to have rendered it bishops in this place, would have shown that elder and bishop is the same office, which would have condemned the church of the translators" (Baptist Succession, p. 292). Edward Hiscox quoted Henry Alford, Dean of Canterbury, as saying that the English Version [the KJV] "has hardly dealt fairly in this case with the sacred text in rendering episcopous, v. 28, overseers; whereas, it ought there, as in all other places, to have been bishops, that the fact of elders and bishops having been originally and apostolically synonymous, might be apparent to the English reader" (Principles and Practices for Baptist Churches, p. 90). If a Church of England Dean can in effect see the bias, why are KJV-only advocates unable to see it? Four times the KJV had translated the same word as bishops (Phil. 1:1, 1 Tim. 3:2, Titus 1:7, 1 Pet. 2:25). In Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown’s Commentary, David Brown asserted that the reason the word was not translated “bishops” at Acts 20:28 was “to avoid the obvious inference that the same persons are here called ‘elders’ (v. 17) and ‘bishops’” (III, p. 150). Concerning Acts 20:17, 28 in an article entitled “On the Right of Dissenting Ministers to the name of Bishops,“ the author asserted: “This is a stubborn passage, and a passage that never can be made to bend to diocesan episcopacy. The translators of King James’s Version saw with what tremendous weight and edge this text would fall on prelacy; therefore, to break its force, and prevent the effects, they introduced a Saxon compound, which has rendered its fall so easy, that the mere English reader never imagines this text to have any bearing on the question of episcopacy” (Congregational Magazine, March, 1827, p. 128).

Baptists Spencer Cone and William Wyckoff observed: “They retained in all cases but one the old ecclesiastical word bishop, but in Acts 20:28, they did not do so; nor could they, without making it appear that there were several bishops in the church at Ephesus, which would not have agreed with diocesan episcopacy” (Primitive Church Magazine, Vol. IX, June, 1852, p. 170). Silas Shepard noted: “The word episcopos they translated uniformly by bishop except in one case. Why did they not so render it in that place? Because it would have been fatal to their notion of prelacy” (British Millennial Harbinger, Vol. VIII, p. 78).

R. Mackenize Beverley contended: “The translators obviously had a motive for concealing the word bishops; and it is to keep out of sight the fact that elder and bishop are synonymous terms, that they have substituted the word overseers; for if the many elders of Ephesus were bishops as the Scriptures assert that they were, then the theory of diocesan Episcopacy would be incurably damaged” (Church of England Examined, p. 8). Silas E. Shephard asserted: “The word episcopos they translated uniformly by bishop except in one case. Why did they not so render it in that place? Because it would have been fatal to their notion of prelacy” (The Reviser, 1855, p. 63). In The Expositor as edited by Samuel Cox, this is stated: ‘It can hardly be doubted that the translators avoided the word ‘Bishops’ in Acts 20:28 and put ‘overseers’ instead, because otherwise it would have been obvious that in the Apostolic age the word ‘presbyter’ and ‘bishop’ were practically identical” (Vol. III, p. 301).

James Lillie maintained: “Because had it there (Acts 20:28) been rendered bishop, everyone would have seen, that in the one Church of Ephesus, there were several bishops. In that one text alone, therefore, the word is translated, not as everywhere else, transferred, because, there, dust had to be thrown into the common reader’s eyes, lest he should discern the unscriptural nature of English Church government” (Bishops, p. 186). John Eadie wrote: “It has also been alleged, and not without some reason, that in Acts 20:28, the rendering of the clause ‘over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers’ is a deflection from the true translation, and conceals the identity of the ‘elders’ with the office-bearers usually named ‘bishops’” (English Bible, II, p. 271). John Beard suggested that the KJV translators saw that the use of “bishops” at Acts 20:28 would have acknowledged that “plain presbyters were the same as bishops” (A Revised English Bible, p. 80). Jack Lewis wrote: “It has been thought that the varied use of ’bishoprick’ (Acts 1:20), ’overseers’ (Acts 20:28), ’oversight’ (1 Pet. 5:2), and ’bishop’ (1 Tim. 3:1) was an effort to avoid identification of bishops and elders” (English Bible, p. 63). John McClintock and James Strong agreed that the use of overseers at Acts 20:28 was “in order to avoid the identification of bishops and elders” (Cyclopaedia, III, p. 218).