Featured Why do you think that by Sowing Changes to the Meanings in God's Word, has Reaped such a Harvest?

God says to worship “in spirit and in truth”.

Did I miss something?

 

It is not O.K. or sound for believers to use different measures/standards for the KJV than what they try to apply inconsistently and unjustly to the word of God translated into present-day English.

The Church of England makers of the KJV changed hundreds of words in the pre-1611 word of God in English, including introducing some Latin-based words from the 1582 Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament. The makers of the KJV used some words with a different intended meaning than how William Tyndale and other early English Bible translators used them. Many today seem to be unaware of the meaning intended by the KJV translators themselves as they intentionally changed some pre-1611 renderings considered to support congregational church government to renderings intended to favor episcopal church government.

Why is it O. K. for the makers of the KJV to change the pre-1611 word of God in English and not O. K. for present-day English Bible translators to do the same things in updating and changing the 1611 KJV?

There have been greater changes in the English language from 1611 until 2011 than there was from 1526 until 1610. There would be less need for another English Bible translation in 1611 than there was need for an English Bible translation in present-day English in the 1980's.

You seem to try to smear and attack the word of God translated into present-day English.

 

Your eyes may be closed to seeing and considering all the facts because of your KJV-only bias or blinders.

The doctrinal views of the NKJV translators are overall sounder than the Church of England doctrinal views of the KJV translators.

Would you take your theology or doctrinal views, your standards, and your practices from Church of England scholars in the 1600’s? How would it be consistent to think that the KJV translators believed incorrect Church of England doctrines and yet claim or suggest that they are the only men who may rightly interpret and translate God's Word into English? Does the KJV translators' acceptance of some false doctrines such as baptismal regeneration counter the claims concerning their claimed superior scholarship? Were the Church of England translators of the KJV in effect false teachers in advocating some incorrect Church of England doctrines?

If the Church of England translators of the KJV could be wrong in some of their doctrinal views which would reveal and demonstrate their imperfect understanding of the Scriptures, they could also be wrong in some of their interpreting and translating of the Scriptures. Considering the preconceptions and assumptions of the KJV translators in following their own Church of England doctrines, it would be illogical to suggest that they were unbiased. If these claimed spiritually mature, intellectually "superior," and Spirit-guided men believed and taught some incorrect or false doctrine based on their own imperfect understanding and interpretation of the Scriptures, it would be inconsistent and even unscriptural to suggest that they were somehow 100% perfect in translating.

In one sermon in 1615, KJV translator Lancelot Andrewes referred to Christ’s baptism as “Christ’s christening” (Chapman, Before the King’s, p. 53). Marianne Dorman commented: “For Andrewes, the only way to become a Christian is through the sacrament of Baptism” (Lancelot Andrewes, p. 127). In a sermon, Lancelot Andrewes asserted: “By Him we are regenerate at the first in our baptism” (Ninety-Six Sermons, Vol. III, p. 191). Lancelot Andrewes wrote: “For the sign of the cross we are no enemies to it, we use it in Baptism” (Two Answers, p. 32). Robert Ottley noted that Andrewes considered the Eucharist "both as a sacrament and as a sacrifice" (Lancelot Andrewes, p. 204). In his Brief Answer to the XVIII Chapter of the first book of Cardinal Perron’s Reply, Lancelot Andrewes wrote: “The Eucharist ever was, and by us is considered, both as a Sacrament, and as a Sacrifice” (Two Answers, p. 19). The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Reformation observed that Andrewes taught that "the means of grace are the sacraments" (I, p. 42). Raymond Chapman referred to the “sacramentalism” of Andrewes (Before the King’s, p. 11). The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church pointed out that Andrewes "held a high doctrine of the Eucharist, emphasizing that in the sacrament we receive the true body and blood of Christ and constantly using sacrificial language of the rite" (p. 61). Dorman maintained that “for Andrewes, to receive Christ’s body at the Eucharist is the most wonderful and important thing that we do during our earthly pilgrimage” (Andrewes, p. 2). Trevor Owen also noted that Andrewes in his book Responsio declared that his church regarded the Eucharist as a sacrifice (Lancelot Andrewes, p. 35). Diarmaid MacCulloch described Andrewes as a ceremonialist and sacramentalist (Boy King, p. 213). Lancelot Andrewes wrote: “We hold good works necessary to Salvation; and that faith without them saveth not” (Two Answers, p. 29).

Marianne Dorman maintained that “Andrewes advocated auricular confession” (Lancelot Andrewes, p. 19). Dorman asserted: “The other sacrament that Andrewes emphasized as important in the life of a Christian is the sacrament of Penance, or Confession” (p. 128). Raymond Chapman maintained that In Andrewes’ “sermon ‘Of the Powers of Absolution’ he defends sacramental confession and the priestly power of absolution, both supported in the Book of Common Prayer” (Before the King’s Majesty, pp. 81-82). In this sermon on John 20:23, Lancelot Andrewes taught the doctrine of absolution and confession (Ninety-Six Sermons, pp. 82-103). In his sermon points, he claimed that in the institution of baptism and the holy Eucharist, there is a power for the remission of sins. Referring to James 5:14-15, Andrewes wrote: "Call for the priests, saith the Apostle, and let them pray for the sick person, and if he have committed sin it shall be forgiven him" (Ibid., p. 95). In notes written by Andrewes in his own Book of Common Prayer, it stated: "The Absolution--Remission of Sins, to be pronounced by the Minister alone" (Works of Lancelot Andrewes, p. 147; Two Answers, p. 147). The Dictionary of Literary Biography confirmed that "in 1600 Andrewes gave direct offense by preaching in defense of priestly absolution" (Vol. 172, p. 5). Dorman cited from his Visitation Articles where Andrewes wrote: “By the minister he [the parishioner] may receive the benefit of absolution, to the quiet of his conscience” (Lancelot Andrewes, p. 128; Two Answers, p. 131). Dorman noted that Andrewes “depicted Lent as that precious time given for making a reckoning of our lives and, accordingly, for making our amends by repentance--and afterwards by fasting, prayer, and almsgiving” (p. 45). F. E. Brightman referred to Andrewes' "strict observance of Lent and Embertides and the other fasts" (Private Devotions, p. xlv). Brightman also cited where Andrewes wrote: "For offering and prayer for the dead, there is little to be said against it" (p. xxvii; Two Answers, p. 24).

The Dictionary of National Biography noted that Lancelot Andrewes "had his private chapels adorned with what Prynne calls 'popish furniture'" (I, p. 403). John Hunt maintained that Prynne described Andrewes’ private chapel as having “all the sacerdotal utensils of a Roman Catholic church” (I, p. 125 note). McClintock observed that the Puritans charged Andrewes "with popery and superstition because of the ornaments of his chapel and the ceremonies there" (Cyclopaedia, I, pp. 223-224).

 

Do you likewise think that sowing the blind acceptance of one exclusive group of Church of England priests in 1611 changing God's pre-1611 word in English has reaped a harvest?

Henry Dexter maintained that “its [KJV’s] translators acted under Episcopal bias, and is some passages modified earlier and more exact versions in its interest” (Hand-Book, p. 15). William Carpenter asserted: “In some cases, the translation has been influenced either by the desire of the translators to conform it to their royal master’s prejudices in favour of episcopacy, or, which is equally probable, to render it accordant with their own sentiments on this subject” (Guide to Practical Reading of the Bible, pp. 58-59).

In the preface to his 1798 translation, Nathaniel Scarlett claimed that “as the translators were laid under restraint by the King, they were a little too compliant in favouring his particular notions; therefore, their translation is partial” (p. iii). R. Mackenzie Beverley maintained that the makers of the KJV “had ecclesiastical motives and commands to attend to in their translation” (Church of England Examined, p. 127). Samuel Cox acknowledged that some renderings in the KJV “have been attributed to ecclesiastical bias” (Expositor, III, p. 301). Edward Jacob Drinkhouse referred to “the Episcopal bias” of the King James translators (History of Methodist Reform, p. 260). Benjamin Hanbury contended that certain renderings in the KJV makes it “sectarian and the symbol of a party” (Historical Memorials, footnote pp. 1-2). Silas Shepard maintained that the KJV “is decidedly sectarian” (British Millennial Harbinger, Vol. VIII, p. 74). In the general preface to his New Literal Translation, James Macknight claimed that “their translation is partial, speaking the language of, and giving authority to one sect” (p. 9). James Edmunds and T. S. Bell asserted that “King James’s servitors warped the Word of God to suit their employer or to suit their theological notions” (Discussion on Revision, p. 113). Edmunds and Bell refer to the KJV as “that sectarian version” (p. 119). Derek Wilson maintained that the translation by Bancroft’s team “had to circumvent any interpretation that might tend towards separatism” (People’s Book, p. 119). R. S. Sugirtharajah asserted that the KJV was seen as “episcopal” (Hamlin, KJB after 400, p. 160). John Beard contended: “Our present Bible wears a courtly dress, and utters the Church-of-Englandism of the day” (A Revised English Bible, pp. 146-147).

Ross Purdy wrote: “There is an Episcopalian bias in the King James Bible” (I Will Have One Doctrine, p. 46). Purdy asserted: “the Anglican bias is still discernible” (p. 15). Purdy referred to “examples of obvious Anglican and authoritative bias” that promote “prelacy” (p. 57).

In the Preface to the Reader in the 2014 Modern English Bible [a translation of the Textus Receptus and the Jacob ben Hayyim edition of the Masoretic Text], it is maintained that according to the instructions given its translators the KJV “would conform to the ecclesiology of the Church of England” and that “the new translation would reflect the episcopal structure of the Church of England and traditional beliefs about ordained clergy” (pp. ix-x). KJV-only author Robert Sargent even acknowledged that the Puritans considered certain words or renderings to favor “Episcopalian polity” (English Bible, p. 230).

 

You make unfair and false accusations that bear false witness against me. I am not being dishonest toward you. You are the one attacking the person instead of addressing the points that I presented.

I have made it very clear that I do not use the accurate term KJV-only to refer merely to Ruckman's views. Peter Ruckman was KJV-only, but his view is not the only view that is KJV-only. I have defined and explained how I accurately use the term. You seem to try to suggest incorrectly that only Ruckman's views should be considered KJV-only. What seems to be dishonest is your bogus accusation that I am supposedly associating you with Peter Ruckman by using the accurate term KJV-only. I clearly demonstrated that you misrepresented Ruckman's actual stated views in three of your points.

This accurate term KJV-only does not suggest that every person who makes any KJV-only claims holds, believes, and accepts all the same ideas or uses identical arguments. Different individuals may use different arguments for their varying exclusive only claims for the KJV, and they may disagree with or even reject the arguments that others use for their exclusive only claims. Different individuals, groups, or camps can differ on some significant or important points and still be KJV-only.

I directly comment on claims and statements that you yourself post, giving clear evidence as to why those claims are misleading or inaccurate. I soundly address the assertions in your very own posts that I quote.

You ignore the fact that you posted some misleading and inaccurate claims, and you do not correct them.

My statement states the truth. It is not O.K. or sound for believers to use different measures/standards for the KJV than what they try to apply inconsistently and unjustly to the word of God translated into present-day English. My statement is clearly and soundly based on scriptural truths concerning the use of the same exact measures/standards and the scriptural truths condemning the use of divers measures [double standards]. If you assume and claim that my true statement does not apply to you, you did not have to take it personally.

The truth remains that the Church of England makers of the KJV changed hundreds of words in the pre-1611 word of God in English, including introducing some Latin-based words from the 1582 Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament. The makers of the KJV used some words with a different intended meaning than how William Tyndale and other early English Bible translators used them. Many today seem to be unaware of the meaning intended by the KJV translators themselves as they intentionally changed some pre-1611 renderings considered to support congregational church government to renderings intended to favor episcopal church government.

The KJV does not given an English word/rendering for each and every original-language word of Scripture. The KJV omits giving English words for thousands of original-language words of Scripture, and the KJV adds thousands of words in English for which it has no original-language words of Scripture. Are the same exact measures/standards applied to the KJV's omitting words and adding words?

Why is it O. K. for the makers of the KJV to change the pre-1611 word of God in English and not O. K. for present-day English Bible translators to do the same things in updating and changing the 1611 KJV?

There have been greater changes in the English language from 1611 until 2011 than there was from 1526 until 1610. There would be less need for another English Bible translation in 1611 than there was need for an English Bible translation in present-day English in the 1980's.

 

Several pre-1611 English Bibles and many post-1611 English Bibles clearly, precisely, and accurately identify Jesus Christ as "our God and Saviour" at 2 Peter 1:1.

William Tyndale in 1534, Miles Coverdale in 1535, and John Rogers in 1537 translated the last part of this verse as "righteousness that cometh of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ." In his 1538 Latin-English New Testament, Miles Coverdale rendered it “righteousness of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ.” The 1539 Great Bible, 1557 Whittingham's New Testament, 1560 Geneva Bible, 1568 Bishops' Bible, 1576 Tomson’s New Testament, 1657 Haak’s English translation of the Dutch Bible, 1755 Wesley's New Testament, 1842 Baptist or Bernard's, 1862 Young’s Literal Translation, 1866 American Bible Union Version, 1982 NKJV, 1994 Majority Text Interlinear, and other English translations render it "righteousness of our God and Saviour [or Savior] Jesus Christ." Thomas Goodwin maintained that “[Theodore] Beza reads it, ‘our God and our Saviour Jesus Christ,’” and that “it clearly meant one person, viz. Christ” (Works, VIII, p. 283).


At 2 Peter 1:1, the 2005 Cambridge edition of the KJV has this note taken from the standard 1762 Cambridge edition: “Gr. of our God and Saviour.” KJV editions printed at Oxford in 1810, 1821, 1835, 1857, 1865, 1868, and 1885, and at Cambridge in 1769, 1844, 1872, and 1887 also have this same note indicating the accurate translation and meaning of the Greek. An earlier KJV edition printed in London in 1711 had the same note and a cross reference to Titus 2:13. Granville Sharp observed: “In the margin of our present version the proper reading is ‘of our God and Saviour,‘ manifestly referring both titles to one person” (Remarks, p. 22). Concerning 2 Peter 1:1 in the Westminster Annotations printed in 1645, this note was also given: “Gr. Of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ.” Thus, the Bible scholars at the Westminster Assembly agreed with the pre-1611 English Bible translators and the editors of some standard KJV editions.

Surprisingly, the 1611 edition of the KJV has a comma after God at 2 Peter 1:1 [God, and our Saviour Jesus Christ], and that comma seems to have remained in most KJV editions printed up to the 1769 Oxford edition. The 1743 Cambridge and 1760 Cambridge editions had actually removed it before the 1769. Even the first KJV edition printed in America in 1782 and KJV editions printed at Oxford in 1788 and in 1795 still have a comma after God at 2 Peter 1:1.

Likewise, at Titus 2:13, the NKJV, the MKJV, and several other English translations read "our great God and Savior Jesus Christ,” more clearly presenting the deity of Christ than the KJV does.

 

At John 8:58, Wesley’s N. T., the 1971 KJII, 1973 NASB, NKJV, MKJV, GLT, and Wuest's translation capitalize "I AM" to make sure the reader knows that Christ was claiming here to be God.

Do these translations more clearly indicate a connection between this verse and Exodus 3:14 than does the KJV?

Oliver B. Greene wrote that “in John 8:58 He [Christ] told the Jews, ’Before Abraham was, I AM’” (Bible Truth, p. 105). In this same book, Oliver B. Greene noted that Jesus “had plainly told the Pharisees, ‘Before Abraham was, I AM’ (John 8:58), and they took up stones to stone Him because He applied Jehovah’s name to Himself” (p. 87). I. M. Halderman asserted: “The ‘I AM’ of John 8:58, is the ‘I AM’ of Exodus 3:14” (Bible Expositions, I, p. 519).

Jay Green maintained that “those [translations] who do not capitalize ’I AM’ fail to reveal to the reader why the Jews picked up stones to stone Christ. It was because by saying I AM, our Lord was telling them that He was God” (Gnostics, the New Versions, p. 34).

The 1560 Geneva Bible has this marginal note for “I am”: “Not only God, but the Mediator between God and man, appointed from before all eternity.”

 

Do KJV-only advocates apply their common slogan or statement "things that are different are not the same" consistently and justly?

Mickey Carter asserted: “Things that are different are not the same. Bibles that are different are not the same” (Things That Are Different, p. 77). John C. Phillips claimed: “The word same means identical, not different or other” (King James Contender, May, 1980, p. 2).

TR defender Jim Taylor wrote: “Things that are different are not the same and we would be academically dishonest to assert that the King James Version and the Textus Receptus were a perfect match when they really aren’t” (In Defense of the Textus Receptus: God's Preserved Word to Every Generation, p. 72).

Are all the words in the KJV the same exact words that were given directly by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles?

How does the KJV keep intact and preserve by accurate translation all the original-language words of Scripture in those many places where it gives no English word/rendering for many of them? In their 1611 marginal notes, the makers of the KJV acknowledged the fact that they omit giving any English word/rendering for many original-language words of Scripture.

1 Kings 16:12 [1611 margin—“Heb. by the hand of”]
by the hand of Jehu the Prophet [1560 Geneva Bible; 1602 Bishops’ Bible]
by Jehu the prophet [1611 KJV]

1 Kings 17:16 [1611 margin—“Heb. by the hand of”]
by the hand of Elia [1540 Great Bible]
by the hand of Eliah [1560 Geneva Bible]
by the hand of Elias [1602 Bishops’ Bible]
by Elijah [1611 KJV]

2 Kings 8:9 [1611 margin—“Heb. in his hand”]
in his hand [1560 Geneva Bible]
with him [1611 KJV]

2 Kings 9:36 [1611 margin—“Heb. by the hand of”]
by the hand of his servant [1602 Bishops’ Bible]
by his servant [1611 KJV]

2 Kings 10:10 [1611 margin—“Heb. by the hand of”]
by the hand of his servant Elias [1602 Bishops’ Bible]
by his servant Elijah [1611 KJV]

2 Kings 13:25 [1611 margin—“Heb. returned and took”]
returned, and took [1560 Geneva Bible]
went again, and took [1602 Bishops’ Bible]
took again [1611 KJV]

2 Kings 19:23 [1611 margin—“Heb. by the hand of”]
By the hand of thy messengers [1540 Great Bible; 1602 Bishops’ Bible]
By thy messengers [1611 KJV]

2 Kings 21:16 [1611 margin—“Heb. from mouth to mouth”]
from corner to corner [1560 Geneva Bible; 1602 Bishops’ Bible]
from one end to another [1611 KJV]

How does the KJV keep intact or preserve by accurate translation those original-language words of Scripture for which it gives no English word/rendering?

Would a consistent, just application of this typical KJV-only slogan that they use to condemn other English Bibles possibly suggest that the KJV is a different Bible than the preserved Scriptures in the original languages?

 

Wilbur N. Pickering wrote: "The AV (KJV) has a most unfortunate translation of both Matthew 21:5 and Zechariah 9:9 (that has been corrected in the NKJV fortunately)" (The Identity of the New Testament Text IV, p. 234).

Wilbur Pickering asserted: "In Matthew, the AV has, 'sitting upon an ass, and a colt the foal of an ass.' The obvious difficulty is that the AV makes Jesus ride two animals, when in fact He only rode one. For the correct rendering of both Zechariah and Matthew, at this point, please see the NKJV" (p. 234).

Matthew 21:5 in the NKJV
Tell the daughter of Zion. Behold your King is coming to you, lowly, and sitting on a donkey, a colt, the foal of a donkey.

 

This translation issue is not limited to the Greek or the AV.

 

Matthew 21:7, ". . . And brought the ass{female}, and the colt{male}, and put on them their clothes . . .". Verse 5 is a female and the young male too.
???

 

Simple answer...Did Jesus ride a colt, a donkey, or both?

 

We know the Greek had no punctuation.

My KJB has no comma, there, yet it means the same thing, with it, or without it.

Straining at gnats…

 

On the contrary, punctuation was used by scribes.

 

It is in dispute.
Pickering wrote regarding verse 7.
"It must have been a curious sight—no one had ever seen anything like it. Mark 11:2 and Luke 19:30 make clear that no one had ever ridden the colt. It was so young it was still staying close to “mother”, so if she was tied he was too. Jesus was going to expose the colt to a frightening experience—be ridden for the first time, by a stranger, someone perhaps heavier than the colt, and in the middle of a noisy crowd! So He has them bring the mother along as moral support. The disciples put clothes on both animals (the clothes would be very strange to the young donkey, but seeing his mother take it patiently would help his peace of mind), but Jesus rode only the colt—maybe He had to lift His feet so they didn’t drag! It was probably comical, a strange way for a King to present Himself."

 

So the scribe of p66 knew of John 7:53-8:11 !?!

 

That's a conclusion for that mark. Sinaiticus has the same mark at same text. As well as some other old ms.