The Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England by Edgar C. S. Gibson (1896) gives some discussion of the meaning and use of the term "Apocrypha," on pages 274-279. Don't know if this is how Logos or Jordan are using the term.
-
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!
King James Version Bible vs. Modern english bible
- Thread starter KingJamesVersionBibleOnly
- Start date
- Status
Not REALLY. The TR has been revised pver thirty times.
What? You call such goofs as "Easter" in Acts 12:4 & "Thou shalt not KILL. rather than MURDER in Ex. 20:13 "superior"?
"Literary quality" does NOT make a translation ACCURATE!
"Standardized" as compared to WHAT?
The Latin Vulgate has a far-longer "heritage". And for far-longer, most men believed the sun & stars revolved around the earth. When someone questioned them, they responded, "Feel yourself revolving or moving? HUH? The earth is perfectly-still!"
Is there any support for the KJVO myth in the KJV itself? OF COURSE NOT! It's a man-made false doctrine.
I have to agree with this.
All the translators of the KJV were Church of England men, which means that they would have had to pay at least lip service to the XXXIX Articles of the Church. As @TCassidy pointed out way back in post #12, Article VI makes it very clear that the Apocrypha is not canonical.
first off, the TR is a much better text than the critical text based on theories of textual criticism proposed by apostate men, Wescott and Hort, Bruce Metzger, Kurt and Barbara Aland, Tischendorf, etc all of these people were heretics, especially when it came to their views of the bible. the critical text most evangelicals use today has come down from the hands of apostate men. I hardly can believe that this is the method and way God would choose to preserve his words in the Hebrew and Greek languages.
secondly, the word Easter is not a blunder, in the time of 1611 I am of the opinion that the word "Easter" was a synonym for Passover, based on the following; 1. Tyndale in his translation often used the word Easter in many places where today in our english bibles the word Passover was used, I have a hard time believing Tyndale was too stupid to understand that the word "pascha" meant passover, in fact many earlier English bibles also used the words "easter" and "passover" interchangeably. 2. in the Anglo Saxon NT, the word "easter" was used in every place to translate the word "passover", also in the Anglo Saxon prayer books the word Easter also was used for the word passover. I think there can be a strong argument to make that we do not really understand the word "easter" today as it was commonly used during the time the King James Translators used the word. the problem is not one of translation, but of reading the bible with our preconceived notions about what particular words mean and only seeing them through our 21st century lenses. To say that Easter is a mistranslation is not really true. It's just a different word. I would say the same thing about the word kill in exodus, even today in modern english today the word kill can mean murder depending on the context in which you say the word.
Are you KJVO, or KJVP though?
Will you use your undefined terms of accusation ["apostates" and "heretics"] consistently and justly or do you apply them inconsistently and unjustly? Does your reasoning attempt to use the fallacy of guilt by association?
Can you demonstrate and prove that the Church of England doctrinal views of Brooke Foss Westcott were significantly different than the Church of England doctrinal views of the KJV translators?
Considering the fact that the KJV translators accepted the Church of England's doctrine of baptismal regeneration, can you demonstrate that none of them could not have be considered unbelievers, apostates, or heretics according to a consistent, just application of the terms?
Do you ignore the Roman Catholics views of Erasmus, the textual critic who added readings from the Roman Catholic Latin Vulgate to his Greek NT manuscripts and who introduced some conjectures found in no known Greek NT manuscripts?
Do you dodge and evade the fact that the Church of England makers of the KJV borrowed renderings from the work of a Jesuit Roman Catholic in the 1582 Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament? Would that fact taint the KJV according to a consistent application of your own assertions?
I believe the King James Version is an accurate and authoritative translation of the preserved Hebrew and agreement text, I am
Not however I’m theory opposed to the KJV being updated to more modern English, however in this day and age I don’t see a legitimate revision taking place, while other versions may contain some of the truth of God’s word, they are corrupted and watered down, the problems are two fold, 1. Being translated from The corrupt critical text and 2. Being translated with loose philosophies of translation. Translators take too much liberty today.
Condemning Westcott and Hort while ignoring the horrible life of Lancelot Andrewes does seem a bit much. Gloating over the deaths of Puritans? Yikes.
The darker side of the chief King James Bible translator, Lancelot Andrewes
The darker side of the chief King James Bible translator, Lancelot Andrewes
I have read David Cloud's books which have his one-sided, unbalanced claims about the beliefs of Erasmus, and his claims do not match up with what I have read from the actual writings of Erasmus translated into English. Sound evidence and actual facts would conflict with what Cloud claims about Erasmus. David Cloud does not apply same consistent, just measures or standards to Erasmus that he would apply to other textual critics.
You did not answer my questions that were based on a consistent application of your own claims
Last edited:
You fail to prove your assertions to be true. You have not demonstrated that the NKJV translators take any more liberty in their translating than the Church of England makers of the KJV also took.
You should be ashamed of yourself, but you probably can't even blush as the Bible says.
How you say those despicable things? Do you care if what you say is utterly false? Should a Christian tell lies and spread those falsehoods on the internet? The answer is a big flat NO.
In your KJVOnlyism quest you do grave injustice to Christ and Truth itself.
Do yourself a favor and research before you attach such evil designations to godly people.
You names six individuals. Let's talk about two of them a bit.
Have you ever read B.F. Westcott's commentary on the Gospel of John? I have, and you would find a biblically edifying and informative work. You would not find anything liberal or unorthodox. I have't reads his books on Hebrews and the Epistles of John. However, I suspect you would find the same excellent content.
Constantin von Tischendorf was a Christian whose dedication to the Lord would put us all to shame.
You need to change your ways --but fast. It's called repentance.
You said it in a nutshell -- you can hardly believe.
WHICH TR REVISION?????????? It's been revised over 30 times since it was first published. And dean John Burgon, whom the KJVOs have made one of their poster boys, said it could stand another thorough revision.
Yes, "Easter" in the KJV's Acts 12:4 IS a goof. First, EASTER DIDN'T EXIST when Luke wrote 'Acts'. Second, neither Herod nor the Jews he was tryint to please would've paused in their dealing with Peter to have observed the anniversary of Jesus' resurrection had it then been observed. Third, the notion "Easter" came from "Ishtar", etc. is false. "Ishtar/Astarte/ Asherah", etc. had become Aphrodite of the Greex & Venus of the Romans before Jesus was born. Fourth, "pascha" is the Greek transliteration of the Hebrew "p'sach", the word GOD used for PASSOVER. Fifth, Ezekiel 45:21 makes it plain that passover is SEVEN DAYS LONG, a fact affirmed in the New Testament by John 18:28.
And I readily admit that Easter and pascha/pask, etc. were used interchangeably by English speakers "back in the day". But Tyndale coined "passover" C. 1534, and that word rapidly came into use. Now, had the KJV read "Easter" all 72 times a word for 'passover' appeared in its sources, we could chalk it up as an archaism, but its SINGLE appearance in the text for NO good reason can only be a goof.
Also, I readily admit pascha can mean easter or passover in MODERN Greek, depending upon the context it's used in, but a Biblical translation must reflect the thoughts of the ORIGINAL AUTHOR closely as possible, and LUKE certainly wasn't thinking about EASTER when he wrote the letter that became the Book of Acts!
So, what's your opinion of the MEV, which is supposed to be the KJV in modern English?
Not to mention the AV translators who were members of the Star Chamber & the Court of High Commission?
The actual high regard that the Church of England of the 1500's and 1600's had for the Apocrypha can be seen in The Books of Homilies. These books were a collection of "authorized sermons" that were intended to be read aloud in the state churches. The first book of twelve homilies was issued in 1547 with authority of the Council. A second book with twenty-one homilies was issued in 1571 under Queen Elizabeth. Davies observed that "the first book of homilies was issued as a standard of Biblical doctrine and preaching for the nation" (Worship and Theology, I, p. 231). Hughes noted that King James I laid down that "preaching ministers are to take the Articles of 1563 and the two Books of Homilies 'for a pattern and a boundary'" (Reformation in England, p. 399). Does that suggest that the KJV translators were required to accept them as a boundary or standard? Peirce pointed out that in the Church of England's Homilies: "Baruch is cited as the Prophet Baruch; and his writing is called, 'The word of the Lord to the Jews'" (Vindication, pp. 537-538). Peirce also claimed that in the Homilies "the book of Tobit is attributed to the Holy Ghost" (p. 538).
Do you try to avoid the fact that other standard works that established Church of England doctrine such as the Book of Common Prayer and the official Books of Homilies did not make it clear?
The 1611 edition of the KJV also did not make it clear since it listed readings from Apocryphal books under the heading "the rest of the Scriptures."
The Church of England in effect gave the people conflicting impressions concerning the Apocrypha. The common people likely did not read the thirty-nine articles, but the readings from the Apocrypha were read to them in official church services. The Book of Common Prayer was used in regular church services, and sermons were preached from the official Books of Homilies.
Do you try to avoid the fact that other standard works that established Church of England doctrine such as the Book of Common Prayer and the official Books of Homilies did not make it clear?
The 1611 edition of the KJV also did not make it clear since it listed readings from Apocryphal books under the heading "the rest of the Scriptures."
The Church of England in effect gave the people conflicting impressions concerning the Apocrypha. The common people likely did not read the thirty-nine articles, but the readings from the Apocrypha were read to them in official church services. The Book of Common Prayer was used in regular church services, and sermons were preached from the official Books of Homilies.
Last edited:
You agree with an incorrect assertion. The facts about the high regard for the Apocrypha in the Church of England at the time of the making of the KJV is not used "to bash the KJV" as that poster alleged.
One point of bringing up additional historical facts is to show the KJV-only use of unjust measures or double standards in their selective misuse of some information while they avoid or dismiss other facts. KJV-only advocates attempt to smear and attack other Bible translations for having the Apocrypha while they avoid some of the facts concerning it and the KJV.
- Status