-
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!
Three Myths about King James Bible
- Thread starter Squire Robertsson
- Start date
Biggest Myth is that the 1611 Kjv was inspired and a brand new translation, but the 1611 team themselves did not see their work as being perfect, inspired, and was a revision of prior English translations!
And encouraged better ones for the future
The same in written form, Three Myths about the King James Bible, by Ryan Reeves.
yes, as they were sure that when better discoveries were made in the future, their work would be revised and updated!
just look at the anger and hatred generated by those in KJVO towards their fellow Christians to see its source!
There are a few myths created by Freedom Readers I don't agree with, for example, the use of "unicorn & satyr" The AV makers had no reason to believe they were mythical-the use of "cockatrice", which then, was applied to any poisonous snake, real of mythical-"voice of the turtle"; at that time 'turtle' was a handle for 'turtledove' context told the reader whether it was referring to a bird or a reptile.
There are plenty enough actual goofs & booboos in the KJV without using untrue ones.
There are plenty enough actual goofs & booboos in the KJV without using untrue ones.
It is not a myth to object to the KJV's use of the rendering "unicorn" for an animal that had two horns.
The KJV translators themselves evidently saw that there was a problem with the pre-1611 English Bibles' rendering "unicorn" [singular] (Deut. 33:17) when the animal had "horns" [plural] so they changed the singular noun in Hebrew at this verse to a plural. There is also the passage in Psalms where the Hebrew has its dual form for the Hebrew word for horns when used for the reem, which would demonstrate that the reem had two horns. Clearly it would not be a myth to object to calling inaccurately an animal with two horns an unicorn--one-horned.
Really? Haven't you guys got a thread of your own to play with unicorns?
Thanks for that, Squire. I found it very interesting.
However, it it the case that James I hated the Presbyterianism of his own country (Scotland). In 1596, a Scottish presbyter called Andrew Melville took hold of James physically, called him "God's silly vassal," and informed him in no uncertain terms that Christ was the true king in Scotland, that His kingdom was the 'kirk' and that James was a mere member of that kingdom, not lord or head, and should therefore keep his nose well out of it.
James believed fervently in the 'Divine Right of Kings' and even wrote two books on the subject, seeing himself as a sort of 'God-King... endowed with divine authority for his work on earth' (Alister McGrath).
As a result, James hated both Puritanism and Presbyterianism (Independence even more so!) and was utterly determined to preserve episcopacy in England and to impose it on Scotland. Hence he insisted that the Greek word episkopos should be translated 'Bishop' which resulted in Judas Iscariot being described as such Acts of the Apostles 1:20)
King james hated also calvinism and the notes of the Geneva Bible, that cut down his "God granted" right to be a King!
Where do you come up with these howlers?
He was a Calvinist!
The Puritan Board's C. Matthew McMahon:
A Short History of Calvinism, the Reformation and England – by Dr. C. Matthew McMahon | Reformed Theology at A Puritan's Mind
Why then did he so despise the study motes of the reformers in the Geneva bible?
That is because the Geneva Bible notes attacked the ungodly conduct of kings. For example:
1. On Daniel 6:22. 'For he disobeyed the king's wicked command in order to obey God, and so did no injury to the king, who ought to command nothing by which God would be dishonoured.'
2. On Daniel 11:36. 'So long the tyrants will prevail as God has appointed to punish His people; but He shows that it is but for a time.'
3. On Exodus 1:22. 'When tyrants cannot prevail by deceit, they burst into open rage.'
For more examples, go to In the Beginning by Alister McGrath (Hodder & Stoughton, 2001).
Just_Ahead
Active Member
Having been on the Puritan Board a while back, I do not regard Matthew McMahon as a fount of wisdom or knowledge,
While James was king in Scotland, Benjamin Brook noted that James had declared in the general assembly at Edinburgh, with his hands lifted to heaven, "that he praised God that he was born to be the king of the purest kirk [church] in the world." "As for our neighbor kirk of England," said he, "their service is an evil-said mass in English." James also said "that the Book of Common Prayer was the English mass book, and that the surplice, copes, and ceremonies were outward badges of popery" (Lives of the Puritans, Vol. 1, p. 60). W. H. Stowell also pointed out that James "had made strong declarations in Scotland of his adherence to the Presbyterian discipline in which he had been educated, publicly avowing his gratitude that he belonged to the purest church in the world, and his purpose to maintain its principles as long as he lived" (History of the Puritans in England, p. 222).
After James became king in England, he abandoned or changed some of his earlier views.
While James I had been a Calvinist for many years, his views under the influence of William Laud seem to have began to change the last few years of his life as he permitted Arminian views to grow in the Church of England.
During those last few years, William Lumpkin wrote: "Arminianism became popular around the court of James I, and the High Church party came to favor it" (Baptist Confessions, p. 15). MacCulloch pointed out that King James’ favorite Buckingham allied himself
with the Arminians and that “the king [James] as well began favoring Arminians” (Reformation, pp. 498-499). MacCulloch also noted that Charles I (son of James I) was “a devout High Churchman,” and that after becoming king, “he promoted Arminianism in every sense” (p. 499).
After James became king in England, he abandoned or changed some of his earlier views.
While James I had been a Calvinist for many years, his views under the influence of William Laud seem to have began to change the last few years of his life as he permitted Arminian views to grow in the Church of England.
During those last few years, William Lumpkin wrote: "Arminianism became popular around the court of James I, and the High Church party came to favor it" (Baptist Confessions, p. 15). MacCulloch pointed out that King James’ favorite Buckingham allied himself
with the Arminians and that “the king [James] as well began favoring Arminians” (Reformation, pp. 498-499). MacCulloch also noted that Charles I (son of James I) was “a devout High Churchman,” and that after becoming king, “he promoted Arminianism in every sense” (p. 499).
Last edited:
Likely King James would have also objected to the note in the Geneva Bible at Psalm 105:15, which is a verse to which King James appealed for his divine right of kings view.
John N. King asserted that King James I used Psalm 105:15 “as a proof text for the divine right of kings in his personal motto, ‘Touch not mine Anointed’” (Fischlin, Royal Subjects, p. 424). Alister McGrath noted: “One of the biblical texts seized upon by the supporters of the ‘divine right of kings’ was Psalm 105:15,“ which they argued meant “the people are forbidden to take any form of violent action against God’s anointed one--in other words, the king” (Christianity’s Dangerous Idea, p. 135). Allison Jack suggested that in the KJV “Psalm 105:15 could indeed stand as a justification of the divine right of kings, which the Geneva Bible had rejected” (Bible and Literature, p. 3). For its rendering “anointed” in its text in the 1560 edition, the Geneva Bible’s marginal note stated: “Those whom I have sanctified to be my people.” Alister McGrath pointed out that “the Geneva Bible interpreted this verse in a rather different way: kings are forbidden to oppress or take any violent action against God’s anointed people” (Christianity’s, pp. 135-136). McGrath again affirmed that “the Genevan notes argued that the term ’anointed’ was to be understood to refer to God’s people as a whole” (In the Beginning, p. 147). McGrath asserted: “According to the Geneva Bible the text was actually, if anything, a criticism of kings, in that their right to harm the people of God was being absolutely denied” (p. 148).
The 1560 Geneva Bible and also some of the other pre-1611 English Bibles also had the renderings "tyrant," "tyrants," and "tyranny" in their text. In those verses, the conduct of tyrants is condemned.