Would say this is very interesting survey on this topic
Home - The King James Bible Study Project
kjbstudyproject.com
-
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?
- Thread starter Logos1560
- Start date
kjbstudyproject.com
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.
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
Well-Known Member
"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.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!Actually, it's just what people used to do in the 17th Century.
David Lamb
Well-Known Member
The KJV has "an house" 72 times, and "a house" 6 times.
Ben1445
Well-Known Member
Definitely the work of a committee.
I have no problem with Lantz's 4th point., except to say that meaning of "offend" was perfectly literal in 1611. It's just not so now.
I believe the same is true of "error" in his 5th point; "error" could mean "sin" in 1611. The Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Commentary says, "Greek, 'ignorances': "inadvertent errors." They might have known, as the law was clearly promulged, and they were bound to study it; so that their ignorance was culpable (compare Ac 3:17; Eph 4:18; 1Pe 1:14). Though one's ignorance may mitigate one's punishment (Lu 12:48), it does not wholly exempt from punishment.
At any rate, so far these are hardly "Top Ten Problems" with the KJV.
I believe the same is true of "error" in his 5th point; "error" could mean "sin" in 1611. The Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Commentary says, "Greek, 'ignorances': "inadvertent errors." They might have known, as the law was clearly promulged, and they were bound to study it; so that their ignorance was culpable (compare Ac 3:17; Eph 4:18; 1Pe 1:14). Though one's ignorance may mitigate one's punishment (Lu 12:48), it does not wholly exempt from punishment.
At any rate, so far these are hardly "Top Ten Problems" with the KJV.
It's still done occasionally in the American tongue,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!
Example: "I live about an hour away from Philly."
In our modern tongue it's not the letter but the sound that determines when to use an "an" or an "a" before a word.
~~~~~~~
I would have picked a whole different 10 verses.
Rob
Alan Dale Gross
Well-Known Member
You want to check them against complete manuscripts, like the King James Version, and see what we already knew God said, before someone sold the idea that the collections of manuscripts they and so many others used through the centuries were corrupted and needed to be dismissed and ignored and replaced exclusively with some of the most tampered with and suspect documents in religion.
No, the Holy Spirit did not Lead gentlemen to conduct their translations under the lie that the collections of manuscripts the King James translators and so many others used through the centuries were corrupted and needed to be dismissed and ignored and mostly replaced exclusively AND MODERNIZED with the Roman Catholic documents resurfaced from the dark underground after hundreds of years of non-use (if they're that old).
"The Spirit Who Spoke in Ancient Days to and through the Prophets and Apostles still Speaks to us through the Written Record of that Revelation, saying, 'Hear, and your soul shall Live.' In the Bible, therefore, we find not only what the Spirit said to the churches of the first century, but what He is still saying to those of the twentieth (& twenty-first). But what He says to us is in Perfect Harmony with what He said to them.
'The Holy Ghost,' as John Knox said to Queen Mary, 'is never contrarious to Himself'
(History of the Reformation in Scotland, ed. C.]. Guthrie, 1898, p. 280)."
Note: why would the Holy Spirit alter and edit out such an enormous percentage of His Words
and those of Jesus that are "Spirit", and Alive, and Living, and are an Eternal Life-Giving Divine Revelation?
"The Holy Spirit, Who Spoke through the Prophets and Who Indwelt Jesus in Permanent Fulness, is the same Spirit Whom Jesus, after His Ascension, Bestowed upon His Disciples to Reveal to them more fully the things concerning Himself. And these things He also Reveals to us as we read the Witness of those men of Old who spoke from God as they were Borne along by the Holy Spirit.
"Because the Holy Spirit is not only the Primary Author of Scripture, but also,
as Abraham Kuyper used the phrase, "the Perpetual Author", continually Speaking through the Word to the believing reader and unfolding fresh meaning from it.
"This abiding vitality is one of the outstanding evidences of the Bible's Divine Character.
"No one generation can exhaust its significance. It is as true in our day
as in John Robinson's that 'the Lord has more truth yet to break forth out of His holy Word.'1
"Every Scripture, says the Apostle (2 Tim. 3. 16), is 'God-breathed' (Gk. theopneustos),
and just as Adam became a living soul when God Breathed into his nostrils the Breath of Life (Gen. 2. 7),
so the 'God-breathed' writings are also Living, and Life-Giving as well."
Because the Holy Spirit Witnesses to the Words in the Bible at all times.
Every time: "So shall My Word be that goeth forth out of My Mouth: it shall not return unto Me void,
but it shall Accomplish that which I Please, and it shall Prosper in the thing whereto I Sent it."
When are they not Living, and Life-Giving?
The Bible sitting in front of you and in your hand isn't Inspired and Alive?
If not, you need to find one then.
Quotes from: https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/ffb/scriptures-faith-symposium_tatford.pdf
I know you are not defending limiting the Word of God, and when I said that they are 'Reader's Digest wannabe abridgements that have removed generous portions of THE WORD OF GOD', that I am not somehow suggesting that there needs to be dozens of more books and chapters added to any complete copies of the Bible.
I know that is not what you meant.
The King James Version is not a manuscript. The KJV is one English Bible translation in the same sense (univocally) as the pre-1611 English Bibles are English Bible translations. Do you try to sell people on the non-true claims for the KJV?
There are many varying editions of the KJV that are not every word the same. Over 2,000 changes, revisions, and corrections were made to the original 1611 KJV edition in later editions. The multiple varying editions of the KJV are not the final authority and standard for the making and trying of all Bible translations. There are multiple varying editions of the KJV in use today.
The KJV does not have an English word/rendering for each and every original-language word of Scripture in its multiple underlying original-language texts. The Church of England makers of the KJV borrowed many renderings from the 1582 Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament. The KJV omitted over 700 words found in the first authorized Church of England English Bible--the Great Bible.
Alan Dale Gross
Well-Known Member
Oh yeah, this is where I told everyone in my post somewhere to remind me of how some people are utterly dependent on labeling anyone that sees even '1 Problem' with any one of the 'modern translations' as KJV-Only.
There it is. I don't believe any KJV-only reasoning/teaching. However, you are 'utterly dependent on labeling anyone that sees even '1 Problem' with any one of the 'modern translations' as KJV-Only'.
The 'modern translations' have too many 'Problems' to count, seriously. So, why fool with them?
You still have to check a reliable source on every verse, similar to the KJV, to see if they are 'accurate',
so that you can know all of what God said.
This is dishonest to make this general declaration of anybody that 'accepts or makes some type of exclusive claims for only one English Bible translation—the KJV', because you actually really do always demand that anyone who sees the '1000 Problems' in every one of the 'modern translations' is a Quack, like your most beloved person ever in the World, Peter Ruckman.
I know you love him because you typed the letters 'KJV'.
That's all the criteria it takes for me to call you a KJV-Only Ruckmanite. So, you're a Quack.
That's fair. How do you like that?
The only things you know are,
#1) you don't have two cents worth of defense for the 'modern translations' '1000 Problems', other than to devour the KJV
and #2) pretend everyone's that uses the KJV is a KJV-Only nutcase and, therefore, an easy target for you to cowardly attack.
In between there is the most Magnificent Supernaturally Superintended work of literature ever written.
THERE IS NOTHING WRONG, AND NOTHING YOU CONTROL AND TRY TO MAKE WRONG, ABOUT SOMEONE WHO EXCLUSIVELY ENJOYS THE KJV, AND WHO DON'T CARE TO TOUCH THE 'MODERN TRANSLATIONS' FOR ANY REASON, AND THAT DOESN'T MAKE ANYONE A RUCKMANITE BY DEFAULT.
YOU LIE JUST LIKE THE TRANSLATORS AND PUBLISHERS OF THE 'NOT REVISED STANDARD' TO THE 'NOT A NEW KING JAMES'.
IT MEANS THEY WORSHIP GOD WITH A BIBLE THAT WAS AROUND BEFORE THE 'MODERN TRANSLATIONS' AND WHEN THERE WAS NOBODY TO CRY ABOUT THEM STUDYING THE BIBLE WITHOUT PURCHASING A 'MODERN ONE' AT ALL.
DO YOU WORK FOR SOME BRANCH OR OTHER OF THE 'MODERN TRANSLATION' SALESFORCE AND RECEIVE CASH FOR BASHING THE KJV? YOU NEVER WILL ANSWER THAT QUESTION.
How else could someone continue to be such a 'Ruckmannite-type-non-thinking' lamebrain?
You have no Earthly idea what versions, or in what languages, I use.
You are always lying when you smear me by calling me KJV-only, by which you mean 'mentally deranged' about how we got our Bibles and you need to cease and desist from associating me with all that stupid dummy stuff you always list about Ruckmanites.
At least you proved that all that is not really any 'Problem', if anybody was talking about making "a" to "an" and "an" to "a" in that article.
Your own posts demonstrate that you believe some non-scriptural KJV-only reasoning/teaching. It is your own statements that would identify your view as KJV-only.
You do not apply the same exact measures/standards to the many varying editions of the KJV that you inconsistently and unjustly apply to post-1611 English Bibles. I soundly apply the same measures/standards to the KJV that KJV-only advocates apply to other post-1611 English Bibles. The truth is consistent while KJV-only reasoning/teaching is inconsistent.
The accurate term KJV-only does not mean "Ruckmanite" as you incorrectly suggest. I nowhere suggest that you are a "Ruckmanite" as you improperly try to suggest. You do not prove any "lies" in what I posted as you throw out your false accusations.
Since the KJV is an English Bible translation, the term KJV-only would be used soundly and correctly to describe a certain view or teaching concerning English Bible translations, not concerning Bible translations in other languages. The accurate term KJV-only is used by Bible believers to define and describe any view that accepts or makes some type of exclusive claims for only one English Bible translation—the KJV. Holders of a KJV-only view would in effect attempt to suggest, assume, or claim that the KJV is the word of God in English in some different sense than any other post-1611 English translation is the word of God in English. While perhaps admitting the fact that the KJV is a translation, holders of a KJV-only view attempt in effect to treat the KJV as though it is in a different category than all other English translations or as though it is not a translation in the same sense (univocally) as other English Bibles. In practice, KJV-only advocates accept no other English Bible as being the word of God translated into English in the same exact sense (univocally) that they would claim only or solely for the KJV. In typical KJV-only reasoning/teaching, no other English Bible is accepted as equal in authority to the KJV as a translation.
It is not reading only the KJV that would be considered to constitute a KJV-only view. Reading only the KJV would not identify the person’s view or beliefs concerning the KJV. It is not using only the KJV in teaching or preaching that would be considered to constitute a KJV-only view. It is not preferring the KJV that constitutes a KJV-only view. What is soundly considered to constitute a KJV-only view would concern a person’s beliefs, opinions, and claims concerning the KJV (his exclusive only claims for it), not his reading only it or using only it in teaching or preaching. Someone can accept the Hebrew Masoretic text and the Textus Receptus and still be KJV-only if they also make any exclusive, only claims for this one English translation--the KJV or if they believe it to be the word of God in English in a different sense than any other English Bible translation. If someone in effect makes the inconsistent textual criticism decisions involved in the making of the KJV the determiner of the Hebrew OT text and Greek NT text, it would indicate the holding of a KJV-only view.
Someone can consult the Hebrew or Greek texts for clarification and study and still be KJV-only if they also believe or make any exclusive claims for only one English translation—the KJV. Someone can read and consult concordances, Bible dictionaries, and commentaries and still be KJV-only. Someone can read another English Bible in order to criticize it and still be KJV-only. KJV-only defines and describes any person who makes any exclusive only claim for one English translation—the KJV.
KJV-only author D. A. Waite sought to maintain that the term KJV-only should apply only to Peter Ruckman and his followers. D. A. Waite tried to suggest that the “KJV-only camp” is “the Peter Ruckman camp” (Critical Answer to Michael Sproul’s, p. 100). D. A. Waite contended that KJV-only “is a term for the Ruckmanites” (p. 67). D. A. Waite alleged that “Ruckman does not believe the Bible should be in Spanish, English, Russian, French, or any other language” (Critical Answer to James Price’s, p. 9). Waite claimed: “The Ruckman position’s ‘only’ is ‘only’ in English (no Spanish, no Italian, no French” (Central Seminary Refuted, p. 20).
Some of Waite’s factually incorrect claims would misrepresent and distort what Peter Ruckman had actually written. According to a just application of Waite’s incomplete definition, Peter Ruckman would not be KJV-only since Ruckman did not claim that the word of God is only in the English KJV and did not claim that all Bible translations in other languages are not the word of God.
Peter Ruckman asserted: “There is nothing wrong with a missionary using the Diodati translation in Italy instead of the Authorized Version. There is nothing wrong with a missionary using the Olivetan version in France instead of the Authorized Version, and there is nothing wrong with a missionary in Germany using Luther’s version instead of the Authorized Version” (Bible Babel, p. 2). Peter Ruckman recommended “Valera’s Spanish version” and “Martin Luther's German version" (Scholarship Only Controversy, p. 1). In his commentary on the book of Revelation, Peter Ruckman wrote: “Martin Luther’s German Bible is the same text as the King James, 1611” (p. 80). Ruckman wrote: “Martin’s German Bible is the German King James Bible. It is the equivalent of the ‘King’s English,’ and so all affirm” (Biblical Scholarship, p. 146). Ruckman wrote: “God produced a German Textus Receptus for the Continent” (p. 230). Ruckman asserted: “Never hesitate to correct any Greek text with the text of the ‘Reichstext’” (Monarch of the Books, p. 19).
Some of Waite’s factually incorrect claims would misrepresent and distort what Peter Ruckman had actually written. According to a just application of Waite’s incomplete definition, Peter Ruckman would not be KJV-only since Ruckman did not claim that the word of God is only in the English KJV and did not claim that all Bible translations in other languages are not the word of God.
Peter Ruckman asserted: “There is nothing wrong with a missionary using the Diodati translation in Italy instead of the Authorized Version. There is nothing wrong with a missionary using the Olivetan version in France instead of the Authorized Version, and there is nothing wrong with a missionary in Germany using Luther’s version instead of the Authorized Version” (Bible Babel, p. 2). Peter Ruckman recommended “Valera’s Spanish version” and “Martin Luther's German version" (Scholarship Only Controversy, p. 1). In his commentary on the book of Revelation, Peter Ruckman wrote: “Martin Luther’s German Bible is the same text as the King James, 1611” (p. 80). Ruckman wrote: “Martin’s German Bible is the German King James Bible. It is the equivalent of the ‘King’s English,’ and so all affirm” (Biblical Scholarship, p. 146). Ruckman wrote: “God produced a German Textus Receptus for the Continent” (p. 230). Ruckman asserted: “Never hesitate to correct any Greek text with the text of the ‘Reichstext’” (Monarch of the Books, p. 19).
Kjvo can not ever give which of the Kjv editions are the perfect one to g=follow, nor which TR Greek text is that perfect text to use