The Bishops’ Bible (of which the KJV is a revision)

{Gail Riplinger voice}
See, the Bishop's Bible is trying to take away from the person of Christ by using "it" for the Word!
j/k

 

If "it" is correct then the "it" being referred to is the Bible. Only the Bible as the word of God can be referred to as an "it". OTOH, if "it" is Jesus then it is proper to translate as "HIM" or "HE".

In HIS service;
Jim

 

Thanks for the info Craig, I love FREE stuff!!

 

Gail Riplinger wrote: "The previous Bishops' Bible (c1568-1611) was no less perfect, pure, and true than the KJV" (IN AWE OF THY WORD, p. 17).

Riplinger claimed that "the Bishops' Bible is the textual twin of the KJV" (IN AWE, p. 164).

 

Is it proper to refer to the Holy Spirit as
"it" instead of "Him" or "He?"

 

Is it proper to refer to the Holy Spirit as
"it" instead of "Him" or "He?" </font>[/QUOTE]The Holy Spirit is the "Third" Person in the Holy Trinity, and, like the Father and the Son, is also a "Person".

In Greek, pneuma hagion" (Holy Spirit) is in the "neuter gender", which would naturally have the pronoun also in the neuter, like "ho" (which), or "auto" (itself). It is true that the "neuter" is used for the Holy Spirit, like in Romans 8:26, where the litearl translation is, "but the Spirit itself..." This is beacuse of the grammar, and not because the Holy Spirit is not a Personal Bening.

In John's Gospel, we have Jesus refer to the Holy Spirit as "He", where He uses the masculine pronoun, "ekeinos" (see, 16:13, etc). Because the sentence contains, "to pneuma" (the Spirit), we would have expected Jesus to have used "ekeino", which is the neuter. But the masculine is clearly used here. Likewise, in Ephesians 1:14, according to the best textual evidence, the Holy Spirit is referred to as "hos" (masculine), as in " Who is the earnest of our inheritance..." It it noteworthy, that this reading has been corrupted to "ho" (neuter).

It has been argued wrongly, that the Holy Spirit is not a "Personal Being", but, rather an "impersonal force", from God, and that the language used in the "masculine" for "it", is only done so to "Personify" the Holy Spirit. This of course is demonic teaching. The Bible clearly ascribes Personal attributes to the Holy Spirit. "He will guide...He will speak" (John 16:13); "He will teach you all things" (John 14:26); "grieve no the Holy Spirit" (Ephesians 4:30); "the mind of the Spirit" (Romans 8:27). None of this could be said of "a thing", but only of a "Personal Being". Further, we read in Acts 5:3-4, that we are told that the Holy Spirt is also "God" (toi theoi)

 

"All thynges were made by it: and without it, was made nothyng that was made." (John 1:3 Bishops' Bible)

So now the Bible created the world?

I don't think so. Try again.

 

Keith;
Did you even read (with comprehension) what I said?
Your knee jerk reaction is untenable in light of the words I used.
There are TWO sentences in the comments of mine which you quoted. Try reading both of them.

In HIS service;
Jim

 

Are you now a Bible corrector, Jim? In light of what Gail Riplinger said about the Bishops' Bible (thanks Logos1560), you apparently want to correct a "perfect" Bible. So now is the Bishops' Bible no longer a "good" pre-KJV Bible? How is it that the Bishops' Bible can be different than the KJV and yet both are still "perfect, pure and true?" Has another KJVO claim been disproven?

 

Verified.

 

Keith;
Care to show all of us where I even hinted at what you have falsely accused me of?
If not, the quit yer lying.

In HIS service;
Jim

 

I downloaded the Bishop's Bible but haven't read much of it yet. Are there any major differences between it and the KJV?

 

Gladly, Jim!

To refresh your memory, you said: "If "it" is correct then the "it" being referred to is the Bible. Only the Bible as the word of God can be referred to as an "it". OTOH, if "it" is Jesus then it is proper to translate as "HIM" or "HE"."

Now that you made the statement, are you denying it is your statement? When you say "it is proper to translate as "HIM" or "HE"." you are saying that the translation used in the Bishops' Bible is not proper. So don't accuse me of lying, when it is you who are telling the lies. Why don't you just come out and say that you didn't make the statement when we can all plainly read that you did make the statement? Trying to weasel your way out of the corner you painted yourself into, Jim?

 

Concerning the Bishops' Bible, Charles Butterworth observed: "Among its peculiaries is the frequent use of 'God' where other versions have 'the Lord'" (LITERARY LINEAGE, p. 180).

I checked out this claim about the Bishops' Bible. The Bishops' Bible does have "God" at some verses [examples Ps. 18:1, 23:1, 25:1, 30:1, 35:1, 71:1, 74:18, etc.] where the KJV has "LORD."

Thus, the Bishops' Bible was the very likely if not certain source of the 1611 edition's rendering "God" at Genesis 6:5, 2 Samuel 12:22, 2 Chronicles 8:16, 2 Chronicles 28:11, and Isaiah 49:13. Later editors of the KJV changed the first two of these to "GOD" and corrected the last three of these to "LORD."

Since the KJV translators themselves kept these renderings from the Bishops' Bible in their 1611 edition, can they accurately be considered printing errors?