Here the effort is to equate the fact not all "improvements" are actually improvements, with the false claim we all should not seek to correctly present God's message in a way our audience can understand. Progress often involves taking two steps forward, then one step back.
-
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!
Do the KJVO accept any other Translation really then?
- Thread starter JesusFan
- Start date
So sad to place a man-made translation of God's Word in that light, but you have the liberty to believe a lie if you want.
Simple Question: Which version of the AV1611 is your final authority? There are 100+ "King James" versions over the past 400+ years, each obviously differ from the others. I prefer the 1769 Oxford edition personally - what I memorized. Assume you don't really use a 1611AV (correct me if you do) but rather some later revision. Just curious.
Saved421
Member
Those are not inspired scripture, those are rejected readings.
Saved421
Member
Hello Bob,
All translations are man made but not all are inspired by God.
The KJB is the inspired word of God and dosen't include printer errors.
Kindly note the very diligent work needed to manual print the Bible.
Also, please remember there are countries where its not possible to get a KJB.
Its not just me but before Ruckman, there were people believing a perfect Bible.
God is a lier if no perfect Bible. We don't need to keep searching.
I use the Pure Cambridge Edition.
The 1611 had printer errors, and no one useth the 1769.
There is a missing portion of a verse in 1769 edition.
I believe the KJB is the word of God in English and its 100% perfect. Its also mathematically perfect.
No, they are the Word of God in a lot of cases. Just read them for yourself and then you will have an informed opinion. God will show you. Read the preface to the 1611 KJV.
The Translators to the Reader
Reasons Moving Us To Set Diversity of Senses in the Margin, where there is Great Probability for Each
Some peradventure would have no variety of senses to be set in the margin, lest the authority of the Scriptures for deciding of controversies by that show ofuncertainty, should somewhat be shaken. But we hold their judgment not to be so sound in this point. For though, whatsoever things are necessary are manifest, as S. Chrysostom saith, and as S. Augustine, In those things that are plainly set down in the Scriptures, all such matters are found that concern Faith, Hope, and Charity. Yet for all that it cannot be dissembled, that partly to exercise and whet our wits, partly to wean the curious from loathing of them for their every-where plainness, partly also to stir up our devotion to crave the assistance of God's spirit by prayer, and lastly, that we might be forward to seek aid of our brethren by conference, and never scorn those that be not in all respects so complete as they should be, being to seek in many things ourselves, it hath pleased God in his divine providence, here and there to scatter words and sentences of that difficulty and doubtfulness, not in doctrinal points that concern salvation, (for in such it hath been vouched that the Scriptures are plain) but in matters of less moment, that fearfulness would better beseem us than confidence, and if we will resolve, to
resolve upon modesty with S. Augustine, (though not in this same case altogether, yet upon the same ground) Melius est dubitare de occultis, quam litigare de incertis, it is better to make doubt of those things which are secret, than to strive about those things that are uncertain. There be many words in the Scriptures, which be never found there but once, (having neither brother nor neighbor, as the Hebrews speak) so that we cannot be holpen by conference of places. Again, there be many rare names of certain birds, beasts and precious stones, etc. concerning which the Hebrews themselves are so divided among themselves for judgment, that they may seem to have defined this or that, rather because they would say something, than because they were sure of that which they said, as S. Jerome somewhere saith of the Septuagint. Now in such a case, 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 as 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. Therefore as S. Augustine saith, that variety of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures: so diversity of signification and sense in the margin, where the text is no so clear, must needs do good, yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded. We know that Sixtus Quintus expressly forbiddeth, that any variety of readings of their vulgar edition, should be put in the margin, (which though it be not altogether the same thing to that we have in hand, yet it looketh that way) but we think he hath not all of his own side his favorers, for this conceit. They that are wise, had rather have their judgments at liberty in differences of readings, than to be captivated to one, when it may be the other. If they were sure that their high Priest had all laws shut up in his breast, as Paul the Second bragged, and that he were as free from error by special privilege, as the Dictators of Rome were made by law inviolable, it were another matter; then his word were an Oracle, his opinion a decision. But the eyes of the world are now open, God be thanked, and have been a great while, they find that he is subject to the same affections and infirmities that others be, that his skin is penetrable, and therefore so much as he proveth, not as much as he claimeth, they grant and embrace
Read what the KJV scholars said in their Bible. They are the People who Translated the KJV. Do not be afraid. This fear you have of reading the word of God is not good for you. Read the notes for yourself. Read the Preface God caused the translators to have printed in the KJV. Do not be afraid.
You choose to believe your human, non-true, and non-scriptural KJV-only opinions concerning the KJV that the KJV itself does not teach.
The Scriptures do not teach that the word of God is bound to the textual criticism decisions, Bible revision decisions, and translation decisions of one exclusive group of doctrinally-unsound Church of England men in 1611. Inconsistent human KJV-only reasoning shows partiality and respect to persons to one exclusive group of Church of England men in 1611 while the wisdom from God above is without partiality (James 3:16).
James 2:9 But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors.
Incorrect. The Church of England makers of the KJV changed some renderings in the pre-1611 English Bibles to make them favorable to their Church of England episcopal church government views.
One clear example of a 1611 edition rendering that has not been demonstrated to be the fault of the printer would be at 1 Corinthians 12:28. 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). John Stoughton wrote: “Bilson, Bishop of Winchester, is particularly mentioned in the manuscript of Bois as engaged upon this final revision, though he was not one of the originally appointed translators” (Our English Bible, p. 247). 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 Thomas Bilson not only have motive to support what he claimed is his 1593 book but also have 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)?
Good to know your position, to mark schismatic brothers who attack the precious doctrine of inspiration and redefine it. And to avoid them.
Romans16:17 (King James 'Version' of the Bible)
Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.