doctrinal views of KJV translators

The were Anglican, unless you think that Anglican theology is pure and orthodox, you wouldn't call the KJV such.

As Anglican's the KJV translators, were baby baptizers, and disregarded the speraration of Church and State. Not to mention they embraced a liturgical form of worship, and some on this forum have produced evidence that some of the KJV translators were involved in persecution of Baptists.

Does anybody have perfect understanding of God's Word?

All that being said, though, it does not mean that the KJV is a bad translation. It is a good conservative translation of Scripture. Just as the NKJV, NASB, ESV are all good conservative translations of Scripture.

 

Yes and no to each question.

They have something called the 39 Articles of Relgion which developed after Henry the 8th. At first there were only a few articles. If one reads them quickly they are impressive.

But within them lies a masterful piece of equivocation straddling the line between the Church of England and the Church of Rome.

The Church of England has had an identity chrisis since Henry the 8th to this very day.


HankD

 

Define "conservative" please? Else I'll have to add "ultra" to my definition of conservation.

 

Here is some "evidence" of just how the KJB translators thought about their task:

So, to try and confirm God's Word on the basis of the character of those who translated it is rather ridiculous, especially considering ALL have sinned and come short of the glory of God. that line of reason would disqualify ALL Bibles.

May I coin a phrase? "Moot"!!

 

I would hope you'renot referring to the words "Jesus Christ" to "equivocate straddling"?

You sahould be more specific when you specify something, or did you? Not that I can see, anyway.

 

Define "conservative" please? Else I'll have to add "ultra" to my definition of conservation. </font>[/QUOTE]They are conservative, because they all typically used a more formal approach to the translation process rather than a dynamic one. However, if you are translating biblical languages to English there are times you have to be dynamic in order for it to read properly.

 

Here is an interesting link concerning Lancelot Andrews. Dr. Marianne Dorman is an Anglecin scholar I believe. I may be mistaken though.

http://mariannedorman.homestead.com/Index.html

 

Define "conservative" please? Else I'll have to add "ultra" to my definition of conservation. </font>[/QUOTE]They are conservative, because they all typically used a more formal approach to the translation process rather than a dynamic one. However, if you are translating biblical languages to English there are times you have to be dynamic in order for it to read properly. </font>[/QUOTE]Ok. Then why does the King James read so much more eloquently? And isn't eloquence sort of the betterment of literary excellence? If it isn't, you just smacked literary excellence in the face. That would fit in the "dumbing down" principle catagory.

 

Like I said before, if you disqualify a version by it's translators questionable doctrinal beliefs, then you disqualify all versions. But when you question the morals of some of the translators well....?

 

You have a good point, then again, we are ALL sinners. Although this could be a whole new thread subject, what translations were actually translated by true Christians?

If you have teams, then obviously, some will NOT be Christians. My question would be, how many on the team ARE Christians?

My whole point here is, are we looking at a person's morals or are we looking at whether or not they are a true born-again "Christian".

Obviously, in the preservation process of God's Word He has used both. So, I don't believe this has as much effect on whether or not a translation is "good" as is possibly being implied in this thread.

. . . just food for thought.

 

Shoot, we don't even know who actually wrote many Scriptures, humanly speaking. We have no idea who wrote most of Judges, Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles. It coulda been anyone in Israel, or even the nephilim. But it's the PRODUCT that matters. The character of King James doesn't matter...he merely AUTHORIZED the AV to be made. Same with Andrewes ot the drunk Thompson...Has anyone found any mistranslations they made, skewed in favor of their theology?

The largest outside influence on the AV was the set of 14 rules made by Archbishop Bancroft, which he had KJ approve, and affixed the king's name to them.

OTOH, could anyone HONESTLY read the NIV and its list of translators & contributors & deduce that Virginia Mollenkott( Used part-time as a consultant for English style & NOT as a translator) is a lesbian?

 

Ok. Then why does the King James read so much more eloquently? And isn't eloquence sort of the betterment of literary excellence? If it isn't, you just smacked literary excellence in the face. That would fit in the "dumbing down" principle catagory. [/QB][/QUOTE]

The KJV reads more eloquently IN YOUR OPINION. It is a matter of opinion. It was eloquent for its day, but our language today is just as eloquent when it uses proper grammer. 400 years from now, people will be saying "Ah that 21st century English was some much more eloquent than what we speak today!"

English is a living language, it undergoes changes.

 

By defending W/H for their translation yet ignoring their doctrinal views, aren't you guys doing the same thing you have said the KJVo authors have done?

Just wondering how that works.

I, for one, would not defend the CoE for its psuedo-catholicism. OTOH, I find it interesting you all would defend W/H in spite of their CoE affiliation. (BISHOP Wescott ring a bell?

In light of history, I would never support CoE if for no other reason than their psuedo-cahtolicism.

In HIS service;
Jim