NKJV allowed at Fellowship Baptist College

[prophet]

The truth is not deceptive. You are misinformed.

It is a fact that all the makers of the KJV were members of the Church of England. The Puritans in that day were part of the Puritan party within the Church of England. The Puritans wanted to purify the Church of England of some of the Roman Catholic doctrines and practices that remained in their church.

Those few Puritan or Puritan-leaning men among the makers of the KJV had been forced to conform to official Church of England positions and to keep silent about their Puritan views by the 1604 canons of Archbishop Richard Bancroft.

Gustavus Paine observed that by 1606 "all the Puritan translators had conformed enough to escape being banished or direly punished in other ways" (Men Behind the KJV, p. 97). For example, Thomas Sparke, a KJV translator who had earlier been one of the four Puritan representatives at the Hampton Court Conference, conformed. Milward noted that in 1607 Sparke published a book or pamphlet “to encourage the Puritan ministers to follow his example and to justify himself against this ’hard censure of many for conforming myself as I have to the orders of our Church” (Religious Controversies, p. 15). Tyacke suggested that Sparke “claimed to have conformed even before the [Hampton Court] conference” (Anti-Calvinists, p. 13).

Hunt noted that King James I had approved canons in 1604 that "required subscription to the entire Book of Common Prayer and the endorsement of all Thirty-nine Articles" (Puritan Moment, p. 108). Lee wrote: "The canons of 1604 demanded that every benefice-holder subscribe to a statement that the Prayer Book and the Thirty-nine Articles were entirely agreeable to the word of God" (Great Britain's Solomon, p. 172). Fisher observed that Bancroft “procured from Convocation, with the King’s approval, the passage of a series of canons which forbade, under penalty of excommunication, the least deviation from the Prayer Book, or any disparagement of the established system of government and worship in the Church” (History, p. 398). Gardiner pointed out that after the 1604 canons “conformity--thorough and unhesitating conformity--was to the unbending rule of the English Church” (History, IV, p. 148).

Before that, as James 1 once bragged, he persecuted the separitist Pilgrims out of England, which is how they ended up among the Baptists in the Netherlands.

 

[franklinmonroe]

Don't hold your breath. I've been waiting for years and am still waiting.

Actually, you saw one I provided over two years ago.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=73323

 

[Logos1560]

Actually, you saw one I provided over two years ago.

In my opinion, you failed to prove that it was a textual difference and not possibly a translational difference according to the accepted range of variation permitted between the KJV and its underlying texts.

That example would fall into the category of the same type differences or variations as there are between the KJV and its underlying original language texts and as there are between the KJV and the pre-1611 English Bibles of which it was a revision.

The KJV itself did not always use a rendering that was the same in number [singular/plural] as the original language word.

The KJV itself in a number of cases translated an original language word that was plural as singular or one that was singular as a plural.