• 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!

Is the KJV's rendering the most accurate in these ten passages?

L

Logos1560

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Alan Dale Gross said:
And you should be thrilled to hear of those that arbitrarily change the meaning of certain Bible texts, removes vital words and phrases from certain passages, and diminish the Authority of the Bible.
Click to expand...
Did the Church of England makers of the KJV arbitrarily and intentionally change the meaning of certain Bible texts in the pre-1611 English Bibles to make them more favorable to Church of England episcopal church government? Did the makers of the KJV remove vital words or phrases at Acts 14:23 that relate to the doctrine of church government?

KJV-only author Robert Potthoff wrote: “Doctrine flows directly from wording. Change the words and you change the doctrine” (Final Authority, p. 50). One place where the 1611 KJV indicates bias for Episcopal church government is in Acts 14:23 where either the KJV translators, Archbishop Richard Bancroft, Bishop Thomas 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.
 
L

Logos1560

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Alan Dale Gross said:
Then you should be Praising God Almighty for innumerable articles and books on any number of 'versions of the Bible' which contain glaring and alarming inadequacies and that weaken, change, or delete certain Doctrines of the Word of God
Click to expand...
The serious problem and alarming inadequacy with KJV-only articles and books is their dependance upon fallacies and their use of double standards as they fail to apply their exact same standards or measures that they use to accuse post-1611 English Bibles to the KJV itself.

Perhaps using the fallacy of begging the question, those biased articles often assume the KJV to be the standard in and of itself instead of comparing the KJV and other English Bible translations to the proper standard of the preserved Scriptures in the original languages.
 
David Lamb

David Lamb

Well-Known Member
Martin Marprelate said:
Sorry to be pedantic, but you meant "starting with a vowel," I think. The unique thing about the KJV is that it also puts an "an" before a word beginning with "h" as in 'a just man and an holy.' What an horrible thing to do! :Laugh Actually, it's just what people used to do in the 17th Century.
Click to expand...
"H" is a strange initial letter. I can remember when British people used to say, "an hotel," whereas now, almost everybody says "a hotel." I just did a search, and found that the KJV used "a holy" 57 times, and "an holy" 40 times.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top