Myth of no need of revision

[Gregory Perry Sr.]

The real difference

You can choose to close your eyes to the truth. If you read the historical facts and truth in my responses to Stilllearning's improper comments, you might have to retract your praise for them. Perhaps it is easier to avoid the truth so you can cling your KJV-only opinions.

KJV-only advocates can not or will not present any consistent, sound, scriptural case for a KJV-only view.

You said above....."If you read the historical facts and truth in my responses......." Brother...just because you SAY that the "facts" you present are historical "truth"...does NOT automatically make them SO.

Logos...you and I both have the same right...the right to our opinions...we just differ. THE TRUTH IS.... neither of us can point to any VERSE...IN SCRIPTURE....that clearly "makes the case" for either of our positions. Both of our "positions" are based on subjective opinions that are formed by an adherence to whichever version of the available EXTRA-BIBLICAL manuscript or textual (in whatever language) "evidence" we, as individuals, have chosen to accept. I will readily admit that the position I hold relies heavily on a "supernatural" element of God's providence and sovereignty over the process of the transmission and preservation of His Word down through the ages. It also relies heavily on the application of LOGIC. I'm not moving even 1/1000th of an inch on my position. I doubt you will either.

The scholarship of man is fine...the "scholars" that were associated with the efforts of 1611 were a smart bunch. Many of the scholars that you would have a high regard for that are associated with the CT and the Modern Versions are also very intelligent. That is where the similarities end. The "products" of the works of these different groups are NOT the same and neither are their "fruits". The KJV will continue to endure inspite of the fact that the producers of the MV's probably wish it would simply vanish. Their works will never supercede this dear old Book. God has put His "stamp" of approval on it for over 400 years by the souls,tears and blood of the redeemed.

Bro.Greg:saint:

 

[Baptist4life]

You said above....."If you read the historical facts and truth in my responses......." Brother...just because you SAY that the "facts" you present are historical "truth"...does NOT automatically make them SO.

Logos...you and I both have the same right...the right to our opinions...we just differ. THE TRUTH IS.... neither of us can point to any VERSE...IN SCRIPTURE....that clearly "makes the case" for either of our positions. Both of our "positions" are based on subjective opinions that are formed by an adherence to whichever version of the available EXTRA-BIBLICAL manuscript or textual (in whatever language) "evidence" we, as individuals, have chosen to accept. I will readily admit that the position I hold relies heavily on a "supernatural" element of God's providence and sovereignty over the process of the transmission and preservation of His Word down through the ages. It also relies heavily on the application of LOGIC. I'm not moving even 1/1000th of an inch on my position. I doubt you will either.

The scholarship of man is fine...the "scholars" that were associated with the efforts of 1611 were a smart bunch. Many of the scholars that you would have a high regard for that are associated with the CT and the Modern Versions are also very intelligent. That is where the similarities end. The "products" of the works of these different groups are NOT the same and neither are their "fruits". The KJV will continue to endure inspite of the fact that the producers of the MV's probably wish it would simply vanish. Their works will never supercede this dear old Book. God has put His "stamp" of approval on it for over 400 years by the souls,tears and blood of the redeemed.

Bro.Greg:saint:

Amen! :thumbs:

 

[Yeshua1]

Can you name or identify any 100% perfect preserved original language manuscripts or printed original language texts that existed in 1611 and which were used by the KJV translators?

Where do the Scriptures teach that God kept all copiers from making any errors when copying the Scriptures and kept all translators from making any errors when translating?

Do you contradict what the Scriptures teach and show partiality to one exclusive group of Church of England scholars in 1611?

Aren't the KJVO folks assigning to the KJV itself the SAME inspiration/inerrancy that are rightfully assigned to JUST the original manuscripts?

And that preservation rightly understood refers to the original language texts we have to use to base KJV/Nasb/Niv etc on?

 

[12strings]

The "products" of the works of these different groups are NOT the same and neither are their "fruits".

You seem to be under the opinion that reading; -"Be holy, because I am holy." (NIV), or “You shall be holy, for I am holy.” (ESV) will necessarily be less holy than a man who reads "Be YE holy; for I am holy." (KJV) Or that a man reading John 3:16 Translated without 1600's idioms will have more trouble accepting Christ?

The KJV will continue to endure inspite of the fact that the producers of the MV's probably wish it would simply vanish. Their works will never supercede this dear old Book.

I think you are wrong on this, though niether of us will likely see the ultimate end...I predict that the KJV will continue to fall out of use among more and more Christians, for the following reasons:

1. Scholars will more and more use something more literal, like the NASB, which does not include 1600 century English idomatic additions such as "God save the King."...when the text says, "LONG LIVE the king."

2. Normal American Christians will set it aside for translations that are written in their language. The KJV English is becoming more and more foreign, and become a barrier to a beginner picking up and reading their bible. A teenager at my church was recently given a modern translation, and he told me how much easier it was to read and understand.

God has put His "stamp" of approval on it for over 400 years by the souls,tears and blood of the redeemed.

Not trying to be mean, Greg, but that statement has no factual basis. There have been countless salvation, martyrs, counseling through tough times, and spiritual growth using non-KJV translations...The only way your statement is true is if you add that God has put his "stamp" of approval on MANY translations of scripture, since he seems to be using many of them to accomplish his work.

 

[Gregory Perry Sr.]

My Turn....!

Aren't the KJVO folks assigning to the KJV itself the SAME inspiration/inerrancy that are rightfully assigned to JUST the original manuscripts?

And that preservation rightly understood refers to the original language texts we have to use to base KJV/Nasb/Niv etc on?

Now...I'm gonna use the same question on you that me and guys who believe as I do usually get "whacked" upside our heads with.......can you PLEASE show me ANY verse of Scripture (and I'll even generously say from ANY Version of your choosing) that supports WHAT YOU JUST ASKED OR SAID???? I think I'll go take a long nap now:laugh:!

Brother...I'm not trying to be disrespectful...I'm just trying to make to you the same point that I made to dear Bro.Logos...you won't find that verse or verses anymore than I could. They don't exist. All our beliefs about these matters are based on a certain amount of "informed" (or not) suppositons. We each assign certain "meanings" to any verses we use to support the beliefs we have about these matters. I do however believe that some of us are RIGHT...and some of us are WRONG. "Things that are different ARE NOT the same. (That's some of that "logic" I was talking about). Have a nice day.:flower:

Bro.Greg:saint:

 

[Gregory Perry Sr.]

Ok but....

You seem to be under the opinion that reading; -"Be holy, because I am holy." (NIV), or “You shall be holy, for I am holy.” (ESV) will necessarily be less holy than a man who reads "Be YE holy; for I am holy." (KJV) Or that a man reading John 3:16 Translated without 1600's idioms will have more trouble accepting Christ?



I think you are wrong on this, though niether of us will likely see the ultimate end...I predict that the KJV will continue to fall out of use among more and more Christians, for the following reasons:

1. Scholars will more and more use something more literal, like the NASB, which does not include 1600 century English idomatic additions such as "God save the King."...when the text says, "LONG LIVE the king."

2. Normal American Christians will set it aside for translations that are written in their language. The KJV English is becoming more and more foreign, and become a barrier to a beginner picking up and reading their bible. A teenager at my church was recently given a modern translation, and he told me how much easier it was to read and understand.



Not trying to be mean, Greg, but that statement has no factual basis. There have been countless salvation, martyrs, counseling through tough times, and spiritual growth using non-KJV translations...The only way your statement is true is if you add that God has put his "stamp" of approval on MANY translations of scripture, since he seems to be using many of them to accomplish his work.

Bro.12Strings,
An interesting response but I respectfully disagree with each of your suppositions. Thankfully, I believe that God will see to it that among the English-speaking people there will always be at least a remnant who will remain faithful to the use of His Word as revealed in the King James Bible. I know many such people and many of them are far younger than I. God has always dealt with faithful "remnants" and numerical minorities....never majorities. I may not be in BIG company...but I am thankfully in good and faithful company!:thumbsup:

Bro.Greg:saint:

 

[Yeshua1]

Do you deny that inspiration/inerrancy ONLY applied to the original books themselves?

 

[Gregory Perry Sr.]

Can You Show....

Do you deny that inspiration/inerrancy ONLY applied to the original books themselves?

Can you supply me with a verse of Scripture that CLEARLY teaches THAT position?
I don't think so.

The position that I DO hold to is that the inspiration/inerrancy that OBVIOUSLY would have to be true in reference to the Original Autographs (for THEM to be the Word of God) (even though they no longer exist) has to be PRESERVED in the course of the transmission of the texts down through the ages since the time it was originally penned OR WE DON'T HAVE THE WORD OF GOD IN OUR DAY. Obviously, if you have been paying any attention to anything I have said then you KNOW that I do believe we that WE DO HAVE the Word of God Today! I believe that the integrity of the inspiration and inerrancy of God's Word has been PRESERVED for us (in English) in the text of the King James Bible...period. That's really all I feel I need to say about that.

Bro.Greg:saint:

 

[robycop3]

Mr. Perry:

The scholarship of man is fine...the "scholars" that were associated with the efforts of 1611 were a smart bunch. Many of the scholars that you would have a high regard for that are associated with the CT and the Modern Versions are also very intelligent.

So far, so good.

That is where the similarities end. The "products" of the works of these different groups are NOT the same and neither are their "fruits".

Of course not! Different translators make different translations, plain-n-simple.


[/quote]The KJV will continue to endure inspite of the fact that the producers of the MV's probably wish it would simply vanish. [/quote]

I don't think so. The sponsors will produce whatever version makes'em money, be it the KJV or the King George Version.

Their works will never supercede this dear old Book. God has put His "stamp" of approval on it for over 400 years by the souls,tears and blood of the redeemed.

Bro.Greg:saint:

I don't think they intend to supercede the KJV; they merely wanna pring God's word in TODAY'S English. Sorry, your made-up excuses against perfectly-legitimate modern translations won't fly-you're gluing feathers onto a hippo, hoping it'll take off.

 

[stilllearning]

Giod indeed preserve his word to us today, for its contained in the original language texts, so BOTh the KJV and modern versions translated off them are EQUALLy the word of God to us in english for today!

he did NOT perserve any english version as "word of God" that was reserved for the originals, and those texts we have today of the greek/Hebrew!

Hello Yeshua1

I remember over the years, hearing about this error of saying that the Bible simply “contains” the Word of God. But it wasn’t until I discovered the BB, that I see downfall of this trap.

By saying that... “it is contained in the original language texts”, you are saying that we are dependent upon “scholars”, to tells us what God actually wants to say to us.

This is like the Catholics looking to the pope, to tell them what God’s Word really says.

God’s promise to preserve His Word is to ME, and I only speak English!
(The fact that the Bible was translated into English, does not diminish it’s inspiration.)
------------------------
Now I know what is going to be said....“God’s promise did not apply to translations!”
But.....the Bible proves that it does!

Our Lord Jesus Christ, chose to use “a translation”(the LXX), in much of His ministry, while He was here on Earth. Therefore placing His stamp of approval on “translations”!

 

[stilllearning]

You show yourself to be uninformed or misinformed. The 1380's Wycliffe's Bible was translated from the Latin Vulgate. Wycliffe's Bible had a number of textual differences from the KJV.

The rendering "penance" is found other times in Wycliffe's (Matt. 3:2, 21:29; 21:32; Mark 6:12; Luke 5:32; 13:3, 5; 15:7, etc.). Do KJV-only advocates agree with the rendering "priests" instead of "elders" in Acts 14:23 and Titus 1:5 in Wycliffe's Bible? At Matthew 3:6, Wycliffe's Bible has "and they were christened of him in Jordan." It read "Jesus christened" at Luke 3:21 and “christened“ at Acts 18:8. The rendering "sacrament" can be found in Wycliffe's Bible at Ephesians 1:9, 3:3, 3:9, 5:32; Colossians 1:27, 1 Timothy 3:16, and Revelation 1:20 and 17:7. It has “deacon” (Luke 10:32) instead of “Levite” and “bishops” (John 7:45, 11:47, 18:3) instead of “chief priests.“ Wycliffe’s has “Christ” (1 Sam. 2:10, 2 Sam. 23:1, Ps. 2:2) where the KJV has “anointed” and “Jesus” (Hab. 3:18) where the KJV has “salvation.“ Wycliffe's has "maiden" instead of "virgin" at Luke 1:27 and “old women in holy habit“ at Titus 2:3 instead of “aged women.” Wycliffe's Bible has the rendering "Calvary" from the Latin Vulgate's Calvariae at Matthew 27:33 and Mark 15:22 where the KJV does not. Wycliffe's Bible has “Isaiah the prophet“ (Mark 1:2), “fruit of light“ (Eph. 5:9), "dread of Christ" (Eph. 5:21), and “eagle“ (Rev. 8:13). The 1395 edition of Wyclife’s has “five thousand” at 1 Kings 4:32 where the KJV has “a thousand and five.“ At 2 Kings 14:17, the 1395 edition of Wycliffe’s has “five and twenty years” where the KJV has “fifteen years.“ Clearly, many words or renderings in the Wycliffe's Bible are different from those in the KJV.


Wycliffe’s Bible omitted “for thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever“ (Matt. 6:13), "Jesus saith unto them" (Matt. 13:51), "wherein the Son of man cometh" (Matt. 25:13), “spoken by Daniel the prophet“ (Mark 13:14), “But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work“ (Rom. 11:6), and “and in your spirit, which are God‘s“ (1 Cor. 6:10). It added: "taught them of the kingdom of God" (Matt. 21:17), "and he shall increase" (Luke 19:26), “and he saith to his disciples” (John 13:38 or 14:1), “of Jesus“ (Acts 16:7), and “after the purpose of God‘s grace“ (Rom. 4:5). At Matthew 24:41, this addition is in Wycliffe's: "twain in one bed, the one shall be taken and the other left." The following was added at John 7:28: "I know him, and if I shall say for I know him not, I shall be like to you, a liar." At Acts 14:7, there is this addition: “and all the multitude was moved together in the teaching of them.“ At Acts 15:41, it added: “commanding to keep the hests of apostles and elder men.“ Wycliffe’s has this addition at Acts 18:4: “putting among the name of the Lord Jesus.“ At 2 John 11, it added: "Lo, I before said to you that ye be not confounded in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ." At Revelation 9:11, it added the following: “And by Latin he has the name Exterminans, that is, a destroyer.“ Other differences (additions and omissions) in Wycliffe's could be given. For example, there are additions in the 1395 edition of Wycliffe’s at Proverbs 4:27, 6:11, and 15:5.


Both the early edition of Wycliffe’s Bible and the later edition also have some additions that seem to be explanations of words used in the text. Glenn Conjurske observed: “The glosses in the early version are very plentiful, and most of them are simply definitions or explanations of words” (Olde Paths, Oct., 1994, p. 228). A few examples from the later edition are here offered as evidence. After “delium” at Genesis 2:12, the 1395 Wycliffe Bible added: “that is, a tree of spicerie.” At Exodus 17:13, the 1395 Wycliffe Bible has the following rendering with explanation in the text: “in the mouth of sword, that is, by the sharpness of the sword.” At the end of Numbers 21:3 after “Hormah,“ several words were added in the later Wycliffe’s [“that is, cursing, either hanging up”]. After “great” at Deuteronomy 4:7, the 1395 Wycliffe Bible has this addition: “not in number either in bodily quantity, but in dignity.”


In addition, Wycliffe's Bible also had a great deal of English that would be considered archaic and not understandable by most present English readers.

Hello Logos1560

Thanks for all the information about Wycliffe's Bible; (Demonstrating it’s erroneous deletions).

But.....the deletions made in today’s MV’s are not a result of simple mistakes;
By all accounts they appear to be calculated, to deliberately remove references to the Lord’s Deity, etc.

 

[stilllearning]

Disagreeing with a modern, man-made KJV-only theory has nothing to do with Westcott and Hort. Your assertions improperly misrepresent the actual views of believers who disagree with the use of fallacies and divers measures that are evident in a KJV-only theory. Your so-called "real issue" is a bogus false claim.

Are you perhaps trying to win favor for your opinions by attempting to misrepresent and smear believers who may disagree with your unproven declarations by improperly associating them with Westcott, Hort, Obama, and liberals? That seems to be a typical improper, carnal KJV-only tactic.

You have provided no sound evidence that shows that English-speaking believers universally accepted the KJV as being perfect. Many English-speaking believers continued to use their loved and accepted Geneva Bible long after 1611. There were believers in the 1600's that pointed out evidence of Episcopal bias and errors in the KJV. A push for a new English translation or a revision of the KJV occurred way back in the 1650's, but it ended with the restoration of the monarchy and the Act of Uniformity. The lack of religious freedom and a state church were factors in making the KJV [the third authorized version of the Church of England] the only availble English translation for many to read for years.

The KJV was accepted as being a translation of God's Word in the same sense and way that the pre-1611 English Bibles were accepted as God's Word. Some of the pre-1611 English Bibles were even reprinted in the 1700's and 1800's. Many English-speaking believers also accepted later English Bibles such as Wesley's [Wesley's New Testament was printed as early as 1755] as being the word of God in the same way that they would claim for the KJV. Wesley's Bible was said to be popular in America. There was a 1842 revision of the KJV by Baptists and other believers that was reprinted several years. Young's Literal Translation dates back as early as 1862. The American Bible Union Version had its New Testament printed as early as 1866. It seems that KJV-only advocates try to rewrite history in order to excuse holding a modern KJV-only theory.

Hello again Logos1560

Here are my answers to your 2nd post.
--------------------------------------------------
First you said........

Disagreeing with a modern, man-made KJV-only theory has nothing to do with Westcott and Hort. Your assertions improperly misrepresent the actual views of believers who disagree with the use of fallacies and divers measures that are evident in a KJV-only theory. Your so-called "real issue" is a bogus false claim.

Are you perhaps trying to win favor for your opinions by attempting to misrepresent and smear believers who may disagree with your unproven declarations by improperly associating them with Westcott, Hort, Obama, and liberals? That seems to be a typical improper, carnal KJV-only tactic.

It’s not a “bogus false claim”; Nor am I trying to “win favor” with anybody.
I believe that the “RULES” of the BB, forbid anyone from calling anybody unsaved.
Therefore I am not going to make that declaration about W&H.
In fact, their relationship with the LORD is not an issue.

Just simply do your own study of their character and opinions and come to your own conclusion.
--------------------------------------------------
Next you said.......

You have provided no sound evidence that shows that English-speaking believers universally accepted the KJV as being perfect. Many English-speaking believers continued to use their loved and accepted Geneva Bible long after 1611. There were believers in the 1600's that pointed out evidence of Episcopal bias and errors in the KJV. A push for a new English translation or a revision of the KJV occurred way back in the 1650's, but it ended with the restoration of the monarchy and the Act of Uniformity. The lack of religious freedom and a state church were factors in making the KJV [the third authorized version of the Church of England] the only availble English translation for many to read for years.

I never said anybody accepted the KJV as being perfect.
What I said was.......
“...the King James Version of the Bible, that was universally accepted as God’s Word by all(English speaking) true Believers, at that time.”

Back in 1891, the definition of a “true Believer” was someone who had trusted Christ by believing the Gospel; Thus they had to BELIEVE THE BIBLE.
Back then, every “true believer”, believed the Bible; And back then, almost every English Bible(regardless of it’s name), was just like the KJB. (Maybe not a carbon copy, but close enough). Therefore..........the King James Version of the Bible, was universally accepted as God’s Word by all(English speaking) true Believers, at that time.
Now just as in every generation since the garden of Eden, you can find crackpot egg-heads, who have always rejected the existence of a perfect Bible.
In fact, the translators of the KJB, warned us about them.......
“...So that if, on the one side, we shall be traduced by Popish Persons at home or abroad, who therefore will malign us, because we are poor instruments to make God's holy Truth to be yet more and more known unto the people, whom they desire still to keep in ignorance and darkness; or if, on the other side, we shall be maligned by self-conceited Brethren, who run their own ways, and give liking unto nothing, but what is framed by themselves, and hammered on their anvil;”

There are always going to be some theologians and scholars who will never admit that we have a perfect Bible, because they want to hammer truth out on “their own anvil”!
--------------------------------------------------
Lastly in this post you said.......

The KJV was accepted as being a translation of God's Word in the same sense and way that the pre-1611 English Bibles were accepted as God's Word. Some of the pre-1611 English Bibles were even reprinted in the 1700's and 1800's. Many English-speaking believers also accepted later English Bibles such as Wesley's [Wesley's New Testament was printed as early as 1755] as being the word of God in the same way that they would claim for the KJV. Wesley's Bible was said to be popular in America. There was a 1842 revision of the KJV by Baptists and other believers that was reprinted several years. Young's Literal Translation dates back as early as 1862. The American Bible Union Version had its New Testament printed as early as 1866. It seems that KJV-only advocates try to rewrite history in order to excuse holding a modern KJV-only theory.

What you are forgetting is back then, “the Bible”, was “the Bible”!
All of these so called revisions and reprints, kept the same basic TEXT, that was universally accepted as God’s preserved Word!

It wasn’t until the late 1800's, that the egg-heads got the upper hand and got a foot in the door, by proclaiming(in a believable way), that the autographs(copies of the original texts), would no longer be considered Inspired.

This proclamation changed everything. Now the door was open for “Bible scholars”, to declare themselves the new popes!

 

[stilllearning]

Any claims that attempt to imply that there has been no revision to the 1611 are demonstrably incorrect, as any honest examination of the facts would reveal.

The 1828 Webster's Dictionary defined revision as "the act of reviewing; review; re-examination for correction; as the revision of a book." Roget's Thesaurus listed "revision" and "correction" as synonyms. Rodale’s Synonym Finder gave “revised or new edition” as a synonym for “revision“ (p. 1036).

If the text of the 1611 edition needed to be corrected, changed, or improved, it was revised. The word "revision" can be accurately used concerning later editions of the KJV.

In his “Editor’s Introduction” to The New Cambridge Paragraph Bible, David Norton observed that the 1769 KJV text and that of later editions “is not the translators’ text but has many readings changed according to the judgements of editors who had made it into a revised version: not a heavily revised version, but still a revised version” (p. viii). David Lawton asserted that “the copies of the King James Bible that we now possess are very different from the original production” (Faith, p. 78). Glenn Conjurske pointed out: “The King James Version itself has been subjected to a number of minor revisions since 1611” (Olde Paths, April, 1993, p. 85). William Paul claimed that the 1769 “Oxford Standard Edition” became “popularly known as “Blayney’s Revision of the King James Version (Oxford, 1769)” (English Language Bible, p. 32).

More changes have been made to the 1611 edition of the KJV than just the changing of spelling and the correction of printing errors. It has not been proven that all the errors in the 1611 edition were the fault of the printers. The 1611 KJV even kept some errors from the 1602 edition of the Bishops' Bible. The KJV translators may have overlooked those errors or at least they failed to make sure that the printers corrected them.

Below are two examples of those errors kept from the 1602 Bishops' Bible that were found in the 1611 KJV.

1 Kings 11:5 [Ammonites--1560 Geneva, 1568 Bishops; Amorites--1602 Bishops]
Amorites {1611, 1613, 1614, 1616, 1617, 1634, 1640, 1644 London}
Ammonites (1769 Oxford, SRB) [1629, 1769 Cambridge, DKJB]

2 Kings 11:10 [house of the Lord--1560 Geneva; the temple--1602 Bishops]
the Temple {1611, 1613, 1614, 1616, 1617, 1634 London} (1843 AFBS)
the temple (1675 Oxford) [1629, 1637, 1817, 2005, 2011 Cambridge] {1640, 1644, 1672 London} (1638 Edinburgh) (1816 Albany) (1816 Collins) (1818 Holbrook) (1827 Smith) (1828 MH) (1832 PSE) (1854 Harding) (2006 PENG)
the temple of the Lord {1795 London} (1897 Mackail)
the temple of the LORD (1769 Oxford, SRB) [1638, 1769 Cambridge, DKJB]

Hello again Logos1560

As for this post; As I said before, the changes(“errors”), you listed, are very interesting and noteworthy.
But....none appear to be calculated, to detract from the Bible’s supernatural quality.

And this is the entire issue, with the KJB controversy.

 

[stilllearning]

Was the KJV universally accepted in the 1650's? Was Westcott and Hort supposedly somehow responsible for this call for a revision or a new translation in the 1650's?

The House of Commons Journal of January, 11, 1653, recorded that it be “resolved, that Mr. Scott do bring in a Bill for a New Translation of the Bible out of the original languages and that he present the names of persons fit to be employed in that service to the House, for their consideration.” B. R. White confirmed that Jessey throughout the 1650’s was engaged in “producing a new translation of the Bible with a committee including, among others, John Owen and John Row” (Knox, Reformation, p. 141). Price indicated that [Brian] Walton was also on this committee (Ancestery, p. 280). The Dictionary of National Biography noted that an order in council (1652) appointed Jessey “one of nine (including [Ralph] Cudworth and [John] Owen) whose approval was required to sanction the publication of any new translation of the Bible” (X, p. 808). This same source confirmed that John Owen “was placed on the commission for licensing translations of the Bible” (XIV, p. 1318).

This source also pointed out that in 1656-7, Ralph Cudworth “considered with a committee of the House of Commons a proposed revision of the translation of the Bible” (V, p. 271). From a draft of a bill for revising the English translation, John Stoughton listed the following men who were to “search and observe wherein the last translation appears to be wronged by the Prelates, or printers, or others”: “John Owen, Ralph Cudworth, Mr. Jenkins, William Greenhill, Samuel Slater, William Cowper, Henry Jessey, Ralph Venninge, and John Row” (Ecclesiastical History of England, II, p. 545). Stoughton cited the bill as appointing Dr. Thomas Goodwin, Dr. [Anthony] Tuckney, and Mr. Joseph Caryl as supervisors of the revision (p. 545).

Ira Price observed that “the reasons that lay back of the bill were in part errors, mainly printers’, and some in translation, and also the so-called prelatical language of the version” (Ancestry, p. 280). Henry Barker noted that “the errors of the Authorized Version, through careless editing and proof-reading, but still more what was called its ‘mistranslations’ and its ‘prelatic language’ contributed toward the movement” (English Bible, p. 187). H. W. Hoare wrote: “In part they were influenced by the fact that many blunders had already come to light in the printing, and that the new edition was accused in certain quarters both of numerous mistranslations and also of “speaking the prelatic language’” (Evolution, p. 275). The Cambridge History of the Bible indicated that this committee often meet at the home of Bulstrode Whitelocke, who had been assigned care of this project (pp. 363-364). Whitelocke wrote: “This committee often met at my house, and had the most learned men in the oriental tongues to consult with in this great business, and divers excellent and learned observations of some mistakes in the translations of the Bible in English (Memorials, IV, p. 284).

The Calender of State Papers, Domestic Series, 1652-1653 as edited by Mary Green noted: “Statement that Dr. Hill declared in his sermon, and has since published, that when the Bible had been translated by the translators appointed, the New Testament was looked over by some prelates he could name, to bring it to speak prelatical language, and that he was informed by a great observer, that in 14 places, whereof he instanced five or six, it was corrupted by them. The like testimony was given by some other ancient and godly preachers who lived in those times, and some appearance hereof may yet be seen in a part of that very copy of those translations” (p. 73). John Eadie pointed out that the report of these 14 changes became part of the preamble of a bill in Parliament around 1657 (English Bible, II, p. 272). Eadie cited that preamble as noting that “the like testimony of these prelates” making those changes was “given by some other ancient and godly preachers also, who lived in those times” (Ibid.). Eadie also reported the preamble affirmed that “some appearance hereof may yet be seen in part of that very copy of these translators” (Ibid.). That important evidence asserts that some who examined the copy of the text prepared by the KJV translators for the printers saw evidence of the changes made by a prelate or prelates in that copy before it was lost or destroyed [perhaps around 1660 in the London fire].

Wow, do you mean that there were people who disliked the King James Bible, from the very beginning?!?
Boy, I need to rethink my trust in the Bible. Maybe what “everybody” says it true!

Here is something else a famous author once said;
Maybe she’s right too?.......
“In her best-selling book, Out on a Limb, Shirley MacLaine recounts how a friend once said to her: "You know that nothing is recorded in the Bible about Christ from the time he was about twelve until he began to really teach at about thirty years old. Right?" "Yes," MacLaine replied, "I had heard about that and I just figured he didn't have much to say until he got older." "Well, no," her friend responded, "a lot of people think that those eighteen missing years were spent traveling in and around India and Tibet and Persia and the Near East. They say he became an adept yogi and mastered complete control over his body and the physical world around him[he] tried to teach people that they could do the same things too if they got more in touch with their spiritual selves and their own potential power."
------------------------
I have never said that W&H were the first ones to attack the KJB.

The foolishness of the above paragraph, demonstrates how I view “man’s opinion” of God’s Holy Word......
“God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar........
(Romans 3:4a)

I love honest & Godly theologians and scholars; But the only reliable way I have of determining their honesty or Godliness, is by what they say “about the Bible”!

A friend loaned me a book once and said the it was good.
Within the first few paragraphs, the author talked about Genesis 32:24-ff and Jacob’s encounter with the preincarnate Christ, and informed me that it was all just a “story” made up by the Jews.....

I didn’t need to read another word.
In fact, the Lord told me not to.........
“Cease, my son, to hear the instruction [that causeth] to err from the words of knowledge.”
(Proverbs 19:27)

 

[Gregory Perry Sr.]

To This I say....

Wow, do you mean that there were people who disliked the King James Bible, from the very beginning?!?
Boy, I need to rethink my trust in the Bible. Maybe what “everybody” says it true!

Here is something else a famous author once said;
Maybe she’s right too?.......
“In her best-selling book, Out on a Limb, Shirley MacLaine recounts how a friend once said to her: "You know that nothing is recorded in the Bible about Christ from the time he was about twelve until he began to really teach at about thirty years old. Right?" "Yes," MacLaine replied, "I had heard about that and I just figured he didn't have much to say until he got older." "Well, no," her friend responded, "a lot of people think that those eighteen missing years were spent traveling in and around India and Tibet and Persia and the Near East. They say he became an adept yogi and mastered complete control over his body and the physical world around him[he] tried to teach people that they could do the same things too if they got more in touch with their spiritual selves and their own potential power."
------------------------
I have never said that W&H were the first ones to attack the KJB.

The foolishness of the above paragraph, demonstrates how I view “man’s opinion” of God’s Holy Word......
“God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar........
(Romans 3:4a)

I love honest & Godly theologians and scholars; But the only reliable way I have of determining their honesty or Godliness, is by what they say “about the Bible”!

A friend loaned me a book once and said the it was good.
Within the first few paragraphs, the author talked about Genesis 32:24-ff and Jacob’s encounter with the preincarnate Christ, and informed me that it was all just a “story” made up by the Jews.....

I didn’t need to read another word.
In fact, the Lord told me not to.........
“Cease, my son, to hear the instruction [that causeth] to err from the words of knowledge.”
(Proverbs 19:27)

AMEN to the whole post...but particularly the underlined portions! And even more particularly that last verse! SL...thanks for having the patience to aswer these long posts by Logos. They really kinda make me dizzy trying to read through them.:smilewinkgrin:
You win the brownie points this time!:tongue3:

Bro.Greg:saint:

 

[12strings]

Bro.12Strings,
An interesting response but I respectfully disagree with each of your suppositions. Thankfully, I believe that God will see to it that among the English-speaking people there will always be at least a remnant who will remain faithful to the use of His Word as revealed in the King James Bible. I know many such people and many of them are far younger than I. God has always dealt with faithful "remnants" and numerical minorities....never majorities. I may not be in BIG company...but I am thankfully in good and faithful company!:thumbsup:

Bro.Greg:saint:

So you have addressed the that we both see different futures for the KJV, but what about:

1. Does reading 16th century idioms make one more holy...ie, bear better "fruit." And if so, How?

2. Were the KJV translators right to alter the text to say "God save the King." (a common phrase in England back then) when it really says "Long live the King."? That seems like an obvious bowing to cultural norms, which is exactly what the MV's get accused of doing.

3. Do you know for a fact that there have been more salvations and martyrs and missionaries in say, the last 60 years, using the KJV as opposed to more modern English translations?

 

[Logos1560]

By saying that... “it is contained in the original language texts”, you are saying that we are dependent upon “scholars”, to tells us what God actually wants to say to us.

This is like the Catholics looking to the pope, to tell them what God’s Word really says.

Actually you are describing the reasoning evident in your own KJV-only theory. A KJV-only theory makes the Scriptures in English dependent upon the textual criticism decisions and translation decisions of an exclusive group of Church of England scholars in 1611.

Is showing partiality to one exclusive group of scholars in 1611 and implying that they were infallible and perfect in their understanding and translation of the Scriptures like Roman Catholic looking to the pope?

 

[Logos1560]

KJV-only presumption

Now just as in every generation since the garden of Eden, you can find crackpot egg-heads, who have always rejected the existence of a perfect Bible.
In fact, the translators of the KJB, warned us about them.......


There are always going to be some theologians and scholars who will never admit that we have a perfect Bible, because they want to hammer truth out on “their own anvil”!

Are you suggesting that the KJV translators were in effect "crackpot egg-heads" if you applied your own assertions consistently?

In their preface to the 1611, the KJV translators argued against the possibility of a perfect translation. The KJV translators argued against the one-perfect-translation only theory of their day--the Latin Vulgate only theory of some Roman Catholics. The KJV translators suggested that they were not prophets or apostles who received the Scriptures perfectly by a miracle of inspiration.

In their preface, 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?

In their preface, the KJV translators asserted: "if anything be halting, or superfluous, or not so agreeable to the original, the same may be corrected, and the truth set in place."

The KJV translators considered their marginal notes to be a very important part of their work. They suggested that readers could consider the alternative rendering in their marginal notes as better in some cases than the one that they put in the text. They suggested that readers could consider the textual variant readings that they put in their marginal notes to be correct instead of the one that they followed in their text.

The KJV translators wrote: "Now in such a case, doth not a margin do well to admonish the Reader to seek further, and not to conclude or dogmatize upon this or that peremptorily. For as it is a fault of incredulity, to doubt of those things that are evident: so to determine of such things as the Spirit of God hath left (even in the judgment of the judicious) questionable, can be no less than presumption. ... They that are wise, had rather have their judgments at liberty in differences of readings, then to be captivated by one, when it may be the other."


The KJV translators asserted that all translations which would have included their own should be tried or evaluated by the greater authority of the preserved Scriptures in the original languages.

In the preface to the 1611 KJV entitled "The Translators to the Reader," Miles Smith favorably quoted Jerome as writing “that as the credit of the old books (he meaneth the Old Testament) is to be tried by the Hebrew volumes, so of the New by the Greek tongue, he meaneth the original Greek. Then Smith presented the view of the KJV translators as follows: "If truth be to be tried by these tongues [Hebrew and Greek], then whence should a translation be made, but out of them? These tongues therefore, we should say the Scriptures, in those tongues, we set before us to translate, being the tongues in which God was pleased to speak to his church by his prophets and apostles."

The KJV translators warned us against one-perfect-translation onlyists or today KJV-only onlyists.

 

[Logos1560]

scriptural principles conflict with KJV-only claims

Logos...you and I both have the same right...the right to our opinions...we just differ. THE TRUTH IS.... neither of us can point to any VERSE...IN SCRIPTURE....that clearly "makes the case" for either of our positions.

You have made a similar claim before, but that does not make it true. I think a very scriptural case can be made against a KJV-only theory. I presented part of such a case in the thread entitled "Scriptural case for or against KJV-only" a few months ago.

Biblical faith should be based on scriptural truths and principles and not on mere opinions, wishful thinking, or speculations.

“The borrower is servant to the lender” (Prov. 22:7). One way or sense that a translation could properly be considered a servant is in how it borrows, derives, or acquires its own text and its authority from its master or source original language text or texts from which it is made (Prov. 22:7). A translation is a borrower from its original language texts. As a borrower, a translation is servant to the lender or lenders [its original language texts] according to what is stated at Proverbs 22:17. The words of the master original language texts determine which words should be in a translation. The words of a translation are under the authority of the original language words from which they are translated. The original language words that proceeded directly from God set the standard and are the authority for what the words of a translation should say (John 12:49, Matt. 4:4). Therefore, it is sound and scriptural to assert that the original language words have greater authority than the derived translated words that borrow authority from their source or sources.

Principles or truths from other scriptures would affirm this truth that a translation is a servant. "The disciple is not above his master, nor the servant above his lord" (Matt. 10:24). In like manner, it can be inferred or deduced that a translation is not above the underlying texts from which it is translated. "The servant is not greater than his lord; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him" (John 13:16). Likewise, a translation is not greater than the original language source or sources [the master text] from which it was made and translated and that gave it its proper derived authority. The lord or master gives authority to his servants (Mark 13:34). The servants do not give authority to the master nor do they have greater authority than the one who delegates authority to them. The person or servant who is sent is not greater than the one who sent him (John 13:16b). Likewise, a translation is not greater than the underlying texts from which it was made. A translation acts as a servant ambassador or messenger that attempts to present faithfully or accurately the meaning of the original language words of its underlying texts in the words of the receptor language. By its definition and in its role as a borrower, a translation can be properly considered servant to the master original language texts from which it was made and translated.

Translators/interpreters do not give authority to the prophets and apostles who were given the Scriptures by the miracle of direct inspiration. Translators do not give authority to the original language words given by inspiration of God. Translators are men under the authority of the preserved Scriptures in the original languages (Matt. 8:9, Luke 7:8, Matt. 10:24, Mark 13:34, John 13:16). The words of men’s wisdom and scholarship in translating do not give authority to the actual words in the original languages given directly by the Holy Spirit to the prophets and apostles. The body of Christ or believers do not give authority to the Scriptures by accepting or approving them. A translation does not give or lend authority to the Scriptures in the original languages that God gave by inspiration to the prophets and apostles.

The original language words from above given by inspiration to the prophets and apostles are above or greater in authority than the translation decisions of men (John 3:31, John 3:34, Isa. 45:9, Matt. 10:24, John 13:16). Which is greater: a translation or the underlying source of the translation? Which is greater: the actual original language words that God gave by inspiration to the prophets and apostles or the different words chosen by translators to try to present the meaning in a different language?

Can a translation be more pure and have more authority than that from which it was made or translated (Job 4:17, Rom. 11:18)? Are not the words given directly by God greater in authority than the choices of men in translating (Job 33:12, Job 4:17)? Shall a translation say to the ones that fashion it and to the sources from which it was made that it is superior (Isa. 45:9)?

How can a supposed "lesser" authority [the preserved Scriptures in the original languages] according to the KJV-only view make a translation of itself into a supposed "greater" authority than itself? How can a branch [any translation] of the KJV-only view’s tree have "greater" authority than the vine, tree, or root [the preserved Scriptures in the original languages] (John 15:1-6, Rom. 11:16-18)?

The branch did not bear or produce the root since the root and tree produced the branch (Rom. 11:18). It would seem to be unscriptural to boast for one branch in claiming that it is the final authority and to boast in effect against the root since the root bears the branch (Rom. 11:18).

 

[stilllearning]

Stilllearn•ing
1. The act, process, or experience of gaining knowledge or skill.
2. Knowledge or skill gained through schooling or study.
3. Psychology Behavioral modification especially through experience or conditioning.

I see no evidence that you are what you claim to be.

I can’t believe that anyone cold say this and be a student of God’s word – at best you are merely a student of the King James Version.

1. Read the preface to the KJV and examine how the translators viewed their translation.
2. Study the history of English translations as noted in the first post.
3. Study how the writers of the Greek New Testament liberally translated the Hebrew Scriptures.
4. Look at quotes of the Hebrew Scriptures used multiple times in the NT version you use and take note when they differ.
5. Observe how archeological data corrected our understanding of obscure words and passages.
6. Begin to learn the original languages that Scripture was written. Someone once said that not knowing the original language of scripture and reading a translation is like ‘kissing your bride through the veil’.
7. Learn basic language translation practices and techniques.

Until you begin to interact with these basic principles and study practices you are a less than a novice at bible study.

Rob

Hi Rob

You said....

“I can’t believe that anyone cold say this and be a student of God’s word – at best you are merely a student of the King James Version.”

So you don’t believe that the King James Version, is God’s Word.
(That is a shame.)
------------------------
I have never claimed to be a scholar; But God’s Word doesn’t give us any of these 7 “basic principles” you listed, as being needed or even important.

The ONLY THING a Bible student needs to FULLY UNDERSTAND God’s Word is the Holy Spirit.......
“But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.” (1 John 2:27)