-
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!
MUST We hvae A perfect bible To have it be word of God?
- Thread starter Yeshua1
- Start date
Not according to the KJV translators?
In their preface to the 1611, the KJV translators asserted: "No cause therefore why the word translated should be denied to be the word, or forbidden to be current, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it. For whatever was perfect under the sun, where apostles or apostolike men, that is, men endued with an extraordinary measure of God's Spirit, and priviledged with the priviledge of infallibility, had not their hand?"
The KJB translators were simply being humble (as they should have been). They did a masterful job as agreed by all. The KJB has been called the greatest literary work ever produced in English. None of the MVs come close to the KJB.
Just because the KJB translators were humble and did not claim perfection does not mean they did not produce an inerrant translation.
they were NOT as learned as those doing the various MV translations, northose on the NKJV though, for there has been GREATLY more onowledge known since the time of 1611 regading textual criticism, hebrew/Greek lexicons, historical information etc!
that is no disrespect to them, as they did a great job with what they had to work with!
So for them to make what modern scholars could not, means they HAD to have Apsotolic inspiration in your view!
Last edited by a moderator:
How do you know whether or not the KJV translators were actually humble? Did you know them personally?
Did the KJV translators accept Congregationalists, Baptists, Presbyterians, or others as fellow believers on a level plane with members of the Church of England?
Was it being humble for several of the KJV translators to be involved in active persecution of those who disagreed with their Church of England doctrinal views?
Were the KJV translators "so humble" that they thought that believers who did not permit their infants to be baptized should be persecuted, imprisoned, or worse?
Now you are showing how desperate you are.
Although I read many books on the subject years ago, most of it has escaped my memory. I cannot remember these types of details.
I can't comment on this, I do not know the details.
If men must have perfect doctrine to be used of God we are all in trouble, none of us holds 100% perfect doctrine. I would bet you consider Original Sin as correct doctrine, I am absolutely convinced it is false doctrine and I believe I could easily prove that to you from scripture. Nevertheless, I believe the KJB translators were honest and very capable men (much more capable than the MV translators) who did an outstanding job. None of them would claim perfection, that does not mean they made mistakes.
Just for my information, do you spend time attacking the Critical Text?
Originally Posted by Logos1560
How do you know whether or not the KJV translators were actually humble? Did you know them personally?
Now you are showing how desperate you are.
What nonsense. How is it supposedly being desperate to challenge or encourage you to back up your unsupported claims with some evidence or demonstration of proper knowledge instead of trying to pass over your speculation or opinion as factual?
franklinmonroe
Active Member
Please, start this as a new topic; I'd like to see your scriptural proof.
"humble" persecutors?
The Dictionary of National Biography noted in a case involving Puritan clergyman Edmund Peacham that George Abbot [who was one of the translators of the KJV] "approved the use of torture" (I, p. 11). George Perry asserted that for his answer to a request for benevolence, Peacham was thrown into the Tower and his study searched. Perry reported: “Peacham was indicted of treason, for divers treasonable passages in a sermon which was never preached, nor intended to be preached, but only set down in writings and found in his study” (History, I, p. 226). Perry stated that “Peacham was examined ‘before torture, in torture, between torture, and after torture’” (Ibid., p. 227). William Urwick maintained that King “James condemned to the scaffold, after torturing, the white-haired Old Puritan, Peacham, once a Hertfordshire minister, who died before the sentence was executed” (Nonconformity in Herts, p. 121).
KJV translators George Abbot and Lancelot Andrewes were two of the Church of England divines who urged the burning at the stake of Bartholomew Legate in March of 1611 (Paine, Men Behind the KJV, p. 142). George Abbot even presided over the proceedings (Ibid., p. 93). The Dictionary of National Biography pointed out that Legate and Edward Wightman were brought before the court of George Abbot and that "Abbot was from the first resolved that no mercy should be shown them" (p. 11). This reference work also pointed out that "Abbot was constantly in attendance in the high commission court and tried to enforce conformity in the church with consistent love of order" (Ibid., p. 18). Andrewes was also a member of the infamous Court of High Commission and the Court of Star Chamber (Sermons, p. xxi). William Pierce maintained that Andrewes had been “one of the agents in carrying out of Whitgift’s oppressive system and especially as a press censor” (Historical Introduction, p. 127). While he worked on the KJV, Thomas Ravis "was highly active as a hated scourge," harassing and persecuting those who would not fully submit to the Church of England (Paine, Men Behind the KJV, p. 93). McClure also noted that the prelate Thomas Ravis was "a fierce persecutor of the Puritans" (KJV Translators Revived, p. 150). MacGregor observed that Ravis “swore to oust those whose Puritan leanings made them reluctant to conform” (Literary History, p. 200). Thomas Bilson, who helped edit and revise the final draft of the KJV, also "carried on the holy warfare" against the Puritans and insisted that they wear the surplice and hood (Men Behind the KJV, p. 96). Smith also confirmed that Bilson "treated the Puritans with uncommon severity" (Select Memoirs, p. 322).
The Dictionary of National Biography noted in a case involving Puritan clergyman Edmund Peacham that George Abbot [who was one of the translators of the KJV] "approved the use of torture" (I, p. 11). George Perry asserted that for his answer to a request for benevolence, Peacham was thrown into the Tower and his study searched. Perry reported: “Peacham was indicted of treason, for divers treasonable passages in a sermon which was never preached, nor intended to be preached, but only set down in writings and found in his study” (History, I, p. 226). Perry stated that “Peacham was examined ‘before torture, in torture, between torture, and after torture’” (Ibid., p. 227). William Urwick maintained that King “James condemned to the scaffold, after torturing, the white-haired Old Puritan, Peacham, once a Hertfordshire minister, who died before the sentence was executed” (Nonconformity in Herts, p. 121).
KJV translators George Abbot and Lancelot Andrewes were two of the Church of England divines who urged the burning at the stake of Bartholomew Legate in March of 1611 (Paine, Men Behind the KJV, p. 142). George Abbot even presided over the proceedings (Ibid., p. 93). The Dictionary of National Biography pointed out that Legate and Edward Wightman were brought before the court of George Abbot and that "Abbot was from the first resolved that no mercy should be shown them" (p. 11). This reference work also pointed out that "Abbot was constantly in attendance in the high commission court and tried to enforce conformity in the church with consistent love of order" (Ibid., p. 18). Andrewes was also a member of the infamous Court of High Commission and the Court of Star Chamber (Sermons, p. xxi). William Pierce maintained that Andrewes had been “one of the agents in carrying out of Whitgift’s oppressive system and especially as a press censor” (Historical Introduction, p. 127). While he worked on the KJV, Thomas Ravis "was highly active as a hated scourge," harassing and persecuting those who would not fully submit to the Church of England (Paine, Men Behind the KJV, p. 93). McClure also noted that the prelate Thomas Ravis was "a fierce persecutor of the Puritans" (KJV Translators Revived, p. 150). MacGregor observed that Ravis “swore to oust those whose Puritan leanings made them reluctant to conform” (Literary History, p. 200). Thomas Bilson, who helped edit and revise the final draft of the KJV, also "carried on the holy warfare" against the Puritans and insisted that they wear the surplice and hood (Men Behind the KJV, p. 96). Smith also confirmed that Bilson "treated the Puritans with uncommon severity" (Select Memoirs, p. 322).
Would be basically just saying that we got that concept from wicked Augustine, later on calvin
NO biblical support for his notion though!!
Are you in effect contradicting yourself by suggesting that two exclusive contradictory assertions can both supposedly be true?
If none of the KJV translators could claim perfection in their understanding/interpreting/translating of the Scriptures, it follows that they made mistakes.
If they did not make any mistakes, they would be perfect.
the ONLY way to have an inerrant text would be to have the KJV team have the SAME inspiration to do translation as the Apostles/prophets had to write the books down, correct?