A little thought

[stilllearning]

Hello Chessic

I have always said, that questions are always good.
(While in the same breath stating that I am dogmatic about God’s Word.)

I also have some questions about the Bible, but I am determined to be patient waiting for the answers, remembering the golden rule.......
“The Bible has no mistakes; and if I find one, than I have made a mistake!”
--------------------------------------------------
Your list of questions......

Several points I get from this quote (and don't necessarily believe, I just have questions about them):
1. the translation was written "as a response?"
2. the king gave instructions to the translators? on how to "conform...?"
3. Every translator was from the Church of England?

On the few occasions where I have used quotes from Wikipedia on this forum, it has been made clear to me, that it can’t be trusted, because anybody can make entries to it.

But lets give it the benefit of the doubt.

The quote that you pasted from it, are charges that I have heard several times before, and frankly I don’t have an answer to them.
(But nobody else does either!)

Can anyone give reliable information, for the politics of 400+ years ago?
(No.)

A good example of this is that fact that a Half a dozen years ago, we are told that “Bush lied and people died”.
And even though the majority of the World believes it, I reject it.

Now if a president of the United States can be successfully smeared unjustly like that, when we have video tape of his actions, what chance does old king James have?
--------------------------------------------------
But you also said........

“When I read these sorts of things, even if I trust the source, which I don't necessarily in this case, I try to keep the questions in perspective, not make quick judgments. But there are questions raised, at least for me personally. I would, after all, not be overly interested in a translation written today based on the above guidelines in today's church of England. Why would I think the same church of 400 years ago was any better of a foundation for a new translation?”

Two points:
1) The statement; “Why would I think the same church of 400 years ago was any better of a foundation for a new translation?”

I have heard, that just a few years ago, the Methodist Church was more conservative than today’s Baptist Church.
And that the Baptist of years ago, had more of a fear of the Lord than today’s Baptists.

Why not think the same, of Godly Christian men of 400 years ago?

2) Your statement: “I would, after all, not be overly interested in a translation.....”

I think that it would be a mistake, for anyone to make a decision like this, based on info. Gathered from the internet.

I personally, am KJVO, because of the way the LORD blesses my study of it.

 

[franklinmonroe]

... "In January 1604, King James I of England convened the Hampton Court Conference where a new English version was conceived in response to the perceived problems of the earlier translations as detected by the Puritans, a faction within the Church of England.[7]

James gave the translators instructions intended to guarantee that the new version would conform to the ecclesiology and reflect the episcopal structure of the Church of England and its beliefs about an ordained clergy. The translation was by 47 scholars, all of whom were members of the Church of England." ...

These two paragraphs are essentially true to the historic facts.

Yes, the translation was "in response" to criticisms of some of the previous early English translations; but particularly of the Geneva Bible which was popular among English layfolk. James didn't actually participate in the translation process, but his wishes would have been well understood (he wanted what we would today call an unifying 'ecumenical' version that would be satisfactory to Puritians, Anglicans, and even his Catholic subjects). Bible translation, being of a religious nature, would fall under the juristriction of the official national churchmen. Puritians were Anglicans that wanted to 'purify' the Church of England of its' inherited Catholic tendencies. The English people of that time were either Anglicans (Lutherism was still developing, and there really were no other Protestant denominations yet) or Catholics (and being overtly Catholic could bring on troubles). Some Catholics would later attempt to assinate James.