was the 1611 KJV A version meant for Just the church of england?

[Yeshua1]

Due to those translating it were from that church group, held to those doctrines, and was made in opposition to the geneva bible so to speak?

Didn't they commend it to the church of england in their preface?

Would they have seen it as being for all christians, or rimarily for that Church then?

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

Due to those translating it were from that church group, held to those doctrines, and was made in opposition to the geneva bible so to speak?

Didn't they commend it to the church of england in their preface?

Would they have seen it as being for all christians, or rimarily for that Church then?

There were puritans on the translation committee as well.

 

[Yeshua1]

There were puritans on the translation committee as well.

thanks for that info!

But it wass till originally transalted for the Church of england for use, correct?

 

[Rhys]

There were puritans on the translation committee as well.

True, but Puritanism (of the non-separating variety) was a revival movement within the Church of England.

But it wass till originally transalted for the Church of england for use, correct?

The Church of England has been a state church since its inception. The Geneva Bible's footnotes offended James' sense of propriety when it came to the 'divine right of kings,' and so were seen by him as seditious and personally insulting - hence the creation of a version 'authorized' by the English monarch - who is also head of the English Church.

 

[Logos1560]

There were puritans on the translation committee as well.

The Puritans were still part of the Church of England so that all the makers of the KJV were members of the Church of England.

The very few Puritans among the makers of the KJV had been forced to conform to offical Church of England positions by the 1604 canons made by Archbishop Richard Bancroft.

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). Otto Scott noted that Bancroft had drawn up new canons (church laws) for the Church of England which "added over forty special rules against Puritan dissenters" (James I, p. 283).

Benjamin Brook observed: "Archbishop Bancroft incessantly harassed and plagued the puritans, to bring them to an exact conformity" (Lives of the Puritans, Vol. 1, p. 64).

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).

In their dedication to King James, the Church of England translators of the 1611 KJV wrote that "we have great hope that the Church of England shall reap good fruit thereby."

 

[robycop3]

The first reason for making the AV was so there'd be one version in use in all the individual Anglican congregations. Later, the govt. of England sought to make it the only English version in use, period, thruout the realm.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

I think the question contained in the OP implies the Church of England preaches a different gospel than other churches. Has that been established? That's the only reason I can see for a Bible version being "just for" a certain denomination, and if that denomination is, in fact, preaching a different gospel, then the version and the denomination would both be suspect.

 

[Yeshua1]

I think the question contained in the OP implies the Church of England preaches a different gospel than other churches. Has that been established? That's the only reason I can see for a Bible version being "just for" a certain denomination, and if that denomination is, in fact, preaching a different gospel, then the version and the denomination would both be suspect.

the Anglican Church has differentviews on doctrines, depending if one is in conservative/liberal branch...

Someone like John Stott/JI Packard would be save for few issues stoudt in theology, while archbishop could have Jesus as just a way to God, Bible not inspired fully etc!

th main problematic area for Anglican/Church of England is tends to water down bible only, as has also apocraphy and their own confessions of faith, and also mixed on salvation, as hold to some kind infant regeneration in baptism...