Jump to content
  • Welcome to Online Baptist

    Free to join.

Tyndale

Preservation and the KJV

Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

 

I am desiring to know if you hold to the same Masoretic and "Received" textual authority as stands behind the King James translation, or if you hold to the textual authority which was lifted up by Westcott and Hort and which has continued to be lifted by present day textual criticism. 

 

I would hold to the traditional Hebrew Masoretic text.  That would also take into account the marginal notes in the Masoretic Text that the KJV translators themselves sometimes translated and used instead of the actual reading in the Masoretic Text.

I would hold to the traditional Greek New Testament text.  There were actual twenty to thirty varying printed Textus Receptus editions available before 1611 so there may be a few textual variations to be settled between them.   The traditional received Greek NT text may differ slightly from the TR editions because of a few places where conjectures were introduced by Erasmus and Beza [readings found in no known preserved Greek New Testament manuscripts and readings not known to have been received in every generation]. 

I do not hold to the Greek text edited by Westcott and Hort.  I do not hold to the Critical Text.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Tyndale said:

I would hold to the traditional Hebrew Masoretic text.  That would also take into account the marginal notes in the Masoretic Text that the KJV translators themselves sometimes translated and used instead of the actual reading in the Masoretic Text.

I would hold to the traditional Greek New Testament text.  There were actual twenty to thirty varying printed Textus Receptus editions available before 1611 so there may be a few textual variations to be settled between them.   The traditional received Greek NT text may differ slightly from the TR editions because of a few places where conjectures were introduced by Erasmus and Beza [readings found in no known preserved Greek New Testament manuscripts and readings not known to have been received in every generation]. 

I do not hold to the Greek text edited by Westcott and Hort.  I do not hold to the Critical Text.

Brother Tyndale,

It appears then that you and I would stand in basic unity with one another on theses matters.  Having followed various of your postings on the subject, I am compelled to admit that you appear to be more studied on factual details than I am; however, our positioning on the texts and concerning the doctrine of preservation appears quite similar (if not, the same).

Edited by Pastor Scott Markle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Tyndale said:

If your question is not actually a simple question, it would not call for a simple answer.  Your question would seem to be actually complex and perhaps misleading or invalid.  Questions can be properly answered by questions.  I will properly explain why I consider your question to be complex or misleading.

I think that both a "no" answer and a "yes" answer could be misunderstood or suggest the wrong thing.   If "no" was given as an answer as your question is worded, it would in effect be saying that the majority of the New Testament text of the Uncial Codices that would be the exactly the same as that in the varying Textus Receptus editions would not be the preserved word of God.  Would you give the answer "no" to your own question and in effect assert that the majority of the New Testament text in the Textus Receptus is not the preserved word of God since both would be the same in the majority of their NT text?  If "yes" was given as an answer as your question is worded, it would be claiming that all the copying errors in the Uncial Codices are the preserved word of God.   I have not suggested that the Uncial Codices should be the standard, and I have not suggested that any textual corruptions should be accepted.

I do not believe that any copying errors introduced by imperfect men are the preserved word of God.  Would you claim that the actual copying errors in the Greek NT manuscripts used by Erasmus were the preserved word of God?

Okay...fair enough. 

As such, I would also agree that any copying errors are not the preserved word of God. 

However, Erasmus had a "majority" advantage over those who use other textual streams. Of which, Erasmus had the ability to compare the manuscripts.

Let me ask this...

Outside of the King James version, do you believe that there is a modern version of the Bible that you accept as being God's word?

Certainly, that is a "yes" or "no" answer? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Tyndale said:

You are entitled to your opinion.  Can you provide sound evidence for your opinion?  Have you studied the actual Church of England doctrinal views held by the KJV translators?  Are you unaware of their acceptance of the Church of England's doctrine of baptismal regeneration?  Have you read and studied their lives and their writings?

Did you know that a good number of the KJV translators were active members of the state Church of England's Court of High Commission that persecuted professed believers for their faith?  Two of them were involved in having two men burned at the stake for their beliefs.

Sound evidence? Sound enough for me...reading any forward from MEVs in comparison with the preface of the 1611. I have not read them all but enough to be disgusted.
Doctrinal views...not in any detail whatsoever, glances at some of the authors sins is as deep as I've gone.
Baptismal regeneration...Yes, and I reject it, somehow God insured that I could see it was incorrect by reading my KJV.
Studied their lives...some very limited study and I understand the translators accepted some views I don't hold.
Prosecuted professed believers...didn't think about the timing but, yes I can see this now.

I agree the lives of the translators were not perfect, outright sinners, me too. I believe God can use deficient men and sinners to preserve His word for English speaking people. Why, do I believe this? He used that murderer Moses to preserve His word. Some of your answers seem to be harsh. I understand these issues are important to you and I can see God using you to keep the rest of us in proper perspective. That is good. Please don't forget to be humble...I'm your brother in the Lord.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That I am aware of, God has yet to use anyone perfect to write, translate, preserve or preach His perfect word (save for Jesus Himself). Praise God, He has maintained it through His power and authority, and not through our imperfect ability.

I have done some certain study on the subject but not nearly what has been done by many here. I have no qualm with Brother Tyndale's sstudy on the matter, nor his pointing out the problems with the KJV translators. Even those few who were not Church of England, but were of the Puritan persuasian, were themselves reformed. But again, bless God, He kept them all at least honest enough to keep out their issues of baptismal regeneration and reformed doctrines. I have even heard the rumors/accusations that King James was homosexual, and therefore the Bible he authorized was not reliable, yet if he was, he was honest enough to demand nothing allowing any kind of that behavior to be added in, either.

I think, for all their flaws, they at least, (or for the most part) truly believed they were doing holy work and God's true word, not as the critics believe, who treat it as any book, to be changed or 'fixed' as they see fit. I don't think anyone holds up the translators as somehow more spiritual or godly than many others, though certainly their abilities in the ancient languages were masterful, they were, however, believers, and God used them well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Alan said:

It is my hope that all of us will love the pages of the Perfect Holy Writ from a loving Father above.

"Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning." James 1:17

Brethren,

In the Poetry thread, I quoted James 1:17, to help explain my love for the scriptures.

In order to keep this posting simple and uncomplicated, after an extensive study of the manuscript issue, a study of the 'Introduction' of the King James 1611, the 'Introduction'  of the 'New International Version'  an intensive  study of the NASV, RV, RSV, the 'Good News for Modern Man' (right after I was saved in the U.S. Air Force, while I was overseas, I picked up a copy of the Good News for Modern Man from the Base Chapel),  and the works of Ruckman, Waite, Burgeon, Grady, Stauffer, and Vance, I came to the conclusion that  the King James Version is the preserved word of God in the English language. (I will forbear mentioning a certain Professor in Greek from one of the three Bible Colleges that I attended, who had his own translation of the 'original Greek,.' and the works of Wuest).

Is the King James Version of 1611 (or any of the 1611 revisions for spelling or grammar),  a 'good gift,' a, 'perfect gift,' 'from above,' and, 'cometh down from the Father of lights,' the preserved word of God? To me, this is the heart of the preservation of the manuscript issue. "Keep thy heart with all diligence; for out of it are the issues of life." Proverbs 4:23 

Or, am I in error?

Or, any of the versions of the scriptures from 1881, the Revised Version of 1881, the 'preserved word of God?' Yes or No.

Is the Greek professor (whom I will forbear mentioning), correct? Do we need another Greek translation? Yes or No.

Do we need another English translation from another Greek translation?  Yes or No.

If so, please let me know which Bible is the preserved word of God.

A simple yes or no will suffice. No long explanations, or even short, explanations, are necessary. I am familiar with the detailed works of Waite (as he was previously mentioned I will only use him as an example), the manuscripts involved, the translators, etc...   So, I do not need to be refreshed by any of the brethren in any of the issues involved.

All I want is an yes or no answer (by anybody, or everybody), to the above question concerning James 1:17

Alan

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with the mindset of the today's "modern scholar" is they are so concerned with things "about the text" that it seems they all but over look the very text they are learning about. The perfected text of the KJV speaks for itself to be an accurate representation of God's word, just as imperfect and corrupted texts of any language speak for themselves, irrespective of their translators. It is indeed a true gift from God of his preserved words for the English speaking people, irrespective of the feelings or any ineptness of its translators.

Isaiah 40:6-8 The voice said, Cry. And he said, What shall I cry? All flesh is grass, and all the goodliness thereof is as the flower of the field: 7 the grass withereth, the flower fadeth: because the spirit of the Lord bloweth upon it: surely the people is grass. 8 The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was all of the word of God preserved? And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen. And it came to pass, that after three days they found Him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the doctors, both hearing them, and asking them questions. And all that heard Him were astonished at His understanding and answers. God is speaking words they can hear Him. If God preserved His word what were those words?

Maybe only the written word is preserved. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not. Where is that written word by the Word? Do we know what was written? No. Was it preserved? No. Was it the written word? Yes

This doctrine has caused me to ask really stupid questions on here. Its one the things I'm having to unlearn because in my early salvation I received bad teaching. 

The Word sitting at God's right hand is preserved. Jesus is preserved, Jesus is alive. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Ukulelemike said:

   I have no qualm with Brother Tyndale's sstudy on the matter, nor his pointing out the problems with the KJV translators. Even those few who were not Church of England, but were of the Puritan persuasian, were themselves reformed.

Actually the Puritan party was still part of the Church of England.  There were two groups in England that sometimes are confused:  the Puritans and the Separatists [Pilgrims].  They may have had similar doctrinal views, but one group [the Puritans] had remained in the Church of England while the other had left it.  From within, the Puritans sought to purify the Church of England of some Roman Catholic doctrines and practices that remained in it while the Separatists had left the Church of England because of those teachings and practices.  Sometimes Puritans would leave the Church of England and become Separatists.

All of the KJV translators were members of the Church of England.  A few had been part of the Puritan party, but they had been forced to conform [at least outwardly] by canons [church rules] made by Archbishop Richard Bancroft and approved by King James I in 1604.  These church rules were mostly against any Puritan dissent in the Church of England.  Archbishop Bancroft used his canons and the Church of England's High Commission Court to silence or persecute the Puritans and to try to force them into conformity with official Church of England positions. 

Edited by Tyndale

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, No Nicolaitans said:

 

However, Erasmus had a "majority" advantage over those who use other textual streams.

Since Erasmus had a "majority" advantage, why did he include some minority readings in his Greek text edition and why did he introduce some readings or conjectures found in no known Greek NT manuscripts?

Since Erasmus had a "majority" advantage, why did he fail to correct some of the actual errors found in the few Greek manuscripts he used to compile and edit his text?

Since Erasmus had a "majority" advantage, why did he include at least a couple readings in his text that you would likely consider to be part of the corrupt textual stream?

The first two editions of the Greek text edited by Erasmus did not have four whole verses that are found in the KJV.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Tyndale said:

Since Erasmus had a "majority" advantage, why did he include some minority readings in his Greek text edition and why did he introduce some readings or conjectures found in no known Greek NT manuscripts?

Since Erasmus had a "majority" advantage, why did he fail to correct some of the actual errors found in the few Greek manuscripts he used to compile and edit his text?

Since Erasmus had a "majority" advantage, why did he include at least a couple readings in his text that you would likely consider to be part of the corrupt textual stream?

The first two editions of the Greek text edited by Erasmus did not have four whole verses that are found in the KJV.

 

You'll have to ask Erasmus.

Why didn't you answer my question? 

Don't worry...I won't ask you any more questions. I kind of feel like I'm talking to Wikipedia...

Have a good evening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

On 2017/4/24 at 10:27 PM, Tyndale said:

 

Did you know that a good number of the KJV translators were active members of the state Church of England's Court of High Commission that persecuted professed believers for their faith?  Two of them were involved in having two men burned at the stake for their beliefs.

Brother Tyndale,

Would you mind giving us the reference book for your above statement concerning the translators on the church of England's Court of High Commission. And, the reference to where these specific men were either for, or against, any persecution, or they excused themselves, or any other specific information.

Also, in an effort to confirm your sources, we need the names of the two men on the translation committee, the date of the trial, whether or not the two men agreed to the execution, the names of the two men who were burned at the stake, the site of the execution, and the date of the execution.

On 2017/4/25 at 8:51 AM, Alan said:

Is the King James Version of 1611 (or any of the 1611 revisions for spelling or grammar),  a 'good gift,' a, 'perfect gift,' 'from above,' and, 'cometh down from the Father of lights,' the preserved word of God? To me, this is the heart of the preservation of the manuscript issue. "Keep thy heart with all diligence; for out of it are the issues of life." Proverbs 4:23 

Are any of the versions of the scriptures from 1881, the Revised Version of 1881, the 'preserved word of God?' Yes or No.

Do we need another Greek translation? Yes or No.

Do we need another English translation from another Greek translation?  Yes or No.

If so, please let me know which Bible is the preserved word of God.

 

James 1:17 is very clear, "Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning."

Would you please answer my questions that I had previously posted (I did slightly shorten, and re-did the grammar). No explanations are needed. If any of the above questions are answered yes than please provide me with the name of the preserved Bible.

Alan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Alan said:

 

Would you mind giving us the reference book for your above statement concerning the translators on the church of England's Court of High Commission. And, the reference to where these specific men were either for, or against, any persecution, or they excused themselves, or any other specific information.

Also, in an effort to confirm your sources, we need the names of the two men on the translation committee, the date of the trial, whether or not the two men agreed to the execution, the names of the two men who were burned at the stake, the site of the execution, and the date of the execution.

KJV translators Lancelot Andrewes, George Abbot, and Thomas Ravis along with KJV co-editor Bishop Thomas Bilson and Archbishop Richard Bancroft, the overseer of the translating, were members of the High Commission Court. Other KJV translators were also members of these commissions.  Roland Usher's list of the commissions in the province of Canterbury included KJV translators John Bois, Arthur Lake, John Layfield, Nicolas Love, James Montague, John Overall, Sir Henry Savile, Miles Smith, and Giles Thompson (The Rise and Fall of the High Commission, pp. 345-359).  

Alexander McClure noted that Richard Bancroft "was the ruling spirit in that infamous tribunal, the High Commission Court, a sort of British Inquisition" (KJV Translators Revived, p. 217).  Thomas Fuller described Bancroft as "the soul of the high commission" (Worthies of England, p. 301).  Christopher Hill maintained that Bancroft used the High Commission Court "as a coercive instrument to enforce uniformity" (Society and Puritanism, p. 349).  Williston Walker pointed out that the High Commission Court "could examine and imprison anywhere in England and had become the right arm of episcopal authority" (History of the Christian Church, pp. 406-407).  Durham Dunlop maintained that the Court of High Commission “became a terrible instrument of tyranny and persecution in the hands of Church and State.  It fined or imprisoned its victims, confiscated their property, tortured or murdered them at will, without being amenable to appeal, or subject to any controlling authority save the Crown, whose creation it was, and whose sanguinary instrument it always proved” (Church, p. 157).  John Southerdan Burn maintained that “the whole course of the High Commission from its first arrest or summons, to the ultimate ruin, or death of its unfortunate victim, was a series of unconstitutional and illegal cruelties,--refusing a copy of the charges, insisting on the oath ex-offico, suspending, deriving, degrading, and ruining the poor wretch,--occasionally sending to prison even the lawyer who dared to defend the accused, or to question the power or legality of the Court” (The High Commission, p. vi).

KJV translators George Abbot and Lancelot Andrewes were two of the Church of England divines who urged the burning at the stake of Bartholomew Legate in March of 1611 (Paine, Men Behind the KJV, p. 142).  George Abbot even presided over the proceedings (p. 93).  The Dictionary of National Biography pointed out that Bartholomew Legate and Edward Wightman were brought before the court of George Abbot and that "Abbot was from the first resolved that no mercy should be shown them" (p. 11).  This reference work also pointed out that "Abbot was constantly in attendance in the high commission court and tried to enforce conformity in the church with consistent love of order" (p. 18).  S. H. Ford wrote that "almost canonized head of the Episcopal Church [King James] thus, in the name of Christ, authorized poor Wightman's death" (Origin of the Baptist, p. 21).  Phil Stringer observed that Wightman was burned at the stake "for declaring that baptism of infants was an abominable custom" or "for being a Baptist" (Faithful Baptist Witness, p. 7).  William Cutter wrote:  “Edward Wightman, ancestor of the American family, was condemned to death and burned at the stake, April 11, 1611, because of his Baptist faith” (New England Families, Vol. 1, p. 36). 

Andrewes was also a member of the infamous Court of High Commission and the Court of Star Chamber (Sermons, p. xxi).  William Pierce maintained that Andrewes had been “one of the agents in carrying out of Whitgift’s oppressive system and especially as a press censor” (Historical Introduction, p. 127).  While he worked on the KJV, Thomas Ravis "was highly active as a hated scourge," harassing and persecuting those who would not fully submit to the Church of England (Paine, Men Behind the KJV, p. 93).  Alexander McClure also noted that the prelate Thomas Ravis was "a fierce persecutor of the Puritans" (KJV Translators Revived, p. 150).  Geddes MacGregor observed that Ravis “swore to oust those whose Puritan leanings made them reluctant to conform” (Literary History of the Bible, p. 200). Thomas Bilson, who helped edit and revise the final draft of the KJV, also "carried on the holy warfare" against the Puritans and insisted that they wear the surplice and hood (Men Behind the KJV, p. 96).  Thomas Smith also confirmed that Bilson "treated the Puritans with uncommon severity" (Select Memoirs of the Lives, Labours, and Sufferings of those Pious and Learned English and Scottish Divines, p. 322).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎4‎/‎24‎/‎2017 at 8:51 PM, Alan said:

 

Is the King James Version of 1611 (or any of the 1611 revisions for spelling or grammar),  a 'good gift,' a, 'perfect gift,' 'from above,' and, 'cometh down from the Father of lights,' the preserved word of God? To me, this is the heart of the preservation of the manuscript issue.

Do we need another English translation from another Greek translation?  Yes or No.

If so, please let me know which Bible is the preserved word of God.

A simple yes or no will suffice. No long explanations, or even short, explanations, are necessary.

 

Explanations are needed and necessary because I would disagree somewhat with some of the premises that would seem to lie behind your questions.  As I have already indicated earlier in this thread, I understand the heart of the Scripture's doctrine of preservation to apply directly to the exact, specific words that proceeded from the mouth of God by inspiration to the prophets and apostles.  In my understanding, exact word preservation or jot and tittle preservation would have to concern preservation of the original language words of Scripture.   In my opinion, you in effect would have to change the definition or meaning of preservation to attempt to use it concerning Bible translations.   What is your definition of preservation?  Exact word preservation or jot and tittle preservation would have to be changed to meaning preservation, thought preservation, or dynamic equivalent preservation in order to apply it to Bible translations.   What type of preservation are you claiming for the KJV?  The KJV does not give a literal rendering of each original language word that the KJV translators had in their underlying original language texts.  Excluding the 1611 reprint editions, present editions of the KJV would not provide a "jot and tittle" preservation of the 1611 edition of the KJV.   Exact "jot and tittle" preservation would not allow even the spelling of words to be changed.   All the actual revisions and changes made to the 1611 edition of the KJV did not involve only spelling or grammar.

The Scriptures given by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles would be the perfect gift directly from God above.  To claim that the KJV was a perfect gift directly from God above would seem to me to be a claim for a second inspiration and regiving of the Scriptures and would in effect make God responsible for the actual errors that were found in the 1611 edition.  The 1611 edition of the KJV was not perfect.

The suggestion that there have been too many English translations would not lead to the conclusion that there should have been only one English translation.  If there should have been only one English translation, there would have been no need for the 1611 KJV.  English-speaking believers already had available before 1611 good English translations of the Scriptures such as the 1537 Matthew's Bible or the 1560 Geneva Bible.  Would God, "with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning" (James 1:17) and who is "without partiality" (James 3:17), show partiality and respect of persons to one group of English Bible translators?

The traditional Hebrew Masoretic Old Testament text and the traditional Greek New Testament text would be the preserved word of God.  Bible translations are translations of the preserved Scriptures in the original languages.

Since God is without partiality and does not show respect of persons, I believe that the KJV is the word of God translated into English in the same sense or way that the pre-1611 English Bibles (of which the KJV is a revision) are the word of God translated into English.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Tyndale said:

KJV translators Lancelot Andrewes, George Abbot, and Thomas Ravis along with KJV co-editor Bishop Thomas Bilson and Archbishop Richard Bancroft, the overseer of the translating, were members of the High Commission Court. Other KJV translators were also members of these commissions.  Roland Usher's list of the commissions in the province of Canterbury included KJV translators John Bois, Arthur Lake, John Layfield, Nicolas Love, James Montague, John Overall, Sir Henry Savile, Miles Smith, and Giles Thompson (The Rise and Fall of the High Commission, pp. 345-359).  

Alexander McClure noted that Richard Bancroft "was the ruling spirit in that infamous tribunal, the High Commission Court, a sort of British Inquisition" (KJV Translators Revived, p. 217).  Thomas Fuller described Bancroft as "the soul of the high commission" (Worthies of England, p. 301).  Christopher Hill maintained that Bancroft used the High Commission Court "as a coercive instrument to enforce uniformity" (Society and Puritanism, p. 349).  Williston Walker pointed out that the High Commission Court "could examine and imprison anywhere in England and had become the right arm of episcopal authority" (History of the Christian Church, pp. 406-407).  Durham Dunlop maintained that the Court of High Commission “became a terrible instrument of tyranny and persecution in the hands of Church and State.  It fined or imprisoned its victims, confiscated their property, tortured or murdered them at will, without being amenable to appeal, or subject to any controlling authority save the Crown, whose creation it was, and whose sanguinary instrument it always proved” (Church, p. 157).  John Southerdan Burn maintained that “the whole course of the High Commission from its first arrest or summons, to the ultimate ruin, or death of its unfortunate victim, was a series of unconstitutional and illegal cruelties,--refusing a copy of the charges, insisting on the oath ex-offico, suspending, deriving, degrading, and ruining the poor wretch,--occasionally sending to prison even the lawyer who dared to defend the accused, or to question the power or legality of the Court” (The High Commission, p. vi).

KJV translators George Abbot and Lancelot Andrewes were two of the Church of England divines who urged the burning at the stake of Bartholomew Legate in March of 1611 (Paine, Men Behind the KJV, p. 142).  George Abbot even presided over the proceedings (p. 93).  The Dictionary of National Biography pointed out that Bartholomew Legate and Edward Wightman were brought before the court of George Abbot and that "Abbot was from the first resolved that no mercy should be shown them" (p. 11).  This reference work also pointed out that "Abbot was constantly in attendance in the high commission court and tried to enforce conformity in the church with consistent love of order" (p. 18).  S. H. Ford wrote that "almost canonized head of the Episcopal Church [King James] thus, in the name of Christ, authorized poor Wightman's death" (Origin of the Baptist, p. 21).  Phil Stringer observed that Wightman was burned at the stake "for declaring that baptism of infants was an abominable custom" or "for being a Baptist" (Faithful Baptist Witness, p. 7).  William Cutter wrote:  “Edward Wightman, ancestor of the American family, was condemned to death and burned at the stake, April 11, 1611, because of his Baptist faith” (New England Families, Vol. 1, p. 36). 

Andrewes was also a member of the infamous Court of High Commission and the Court of Star Chamber (Sermons, p. xxi).  William Pierce maintained that Andrewes had been “one of the agents in carrying out of Whitgift’s oppressive system and especially as a press censor” (Historical Introduction, p. 127).  While he worked on the KJV, Thomas Ravis "was highly active as a hated scourge," harassing and persecuting those who would not fully submit to the Church of England (Paine, Men Behind the KJV, p. 93).  Alexander McClure also noted that the prelate Thomas Ravis was "a fierce persecutor of the Puritans" (KJV Translators Revived, p. 150).  Geddes MacGregor observed that Ravis “swore to oust those whose Puritan leanings made them reluctant to conform” (Literary History of the Bible, p. 200). Thomas Bilson, who helped edit and revise the final draft of the KJV, also "carried on the holy warfare" against the Puritans and insisted that they wear the surplice and hood (Men Behind the KJV, p. 96).  Thomas Smith also confirmed that Bilson "treated the Puritans with uncommon severity" (Select Memoirs of the Lives, Labours, and Sufferings of those Pious and Learned English and Scottish Divines, p. 322).

I see from your declarations of "truth" in this thread about these books you study, they carry allot of weight with you and this is the problem friend. Believe half of what you see and much less what you read of men.

I have said it before and say it again; I have personally been eyewitness to dozens of events over my lifetime that have been documented in newspapers, magazines and books. Not one single time did the writers get the details of these events straight in their documenting. I think most if they gave it thought would come to the same conclusion. Why waste precious time on the speculations and "histories" according to flawed men and their agendas?

Chances are most of what you read in these books of men is inaccurate and even fabricated originally or over time. The Spirit will show you the way and the way will always be the KJB. His Word needs no caveat, or supplement, and certainly no documented history for those with seeing eyes to understand and believe it.

And that is basically your goal here, is it not? A subtle attack vainly attempting to degrade faith in the KJB? The only "version" that has undergone constant attack from satan since its beginning. The world never minds the modern versions, nor do they mind Tyndale or Geneva. But satan's world has always hated the KJB.

I wonder why?....think about it.

13 minutes ago, Tyndale said:

The traditional Hebrew Masoretic Old Testament text and the traditional Greek New Testament text would be the preserved word of God.  Bible translations are translations of the preserved Scriptures in the original languages.

So based on this admission, you sadly have no preserved Word of God. I am thankful that I do. Open your eyes to the Spirit and close them to the world's "wisdom" friend. You will do much better for the Lord when you do.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, wretched said:

 

So based on this admission, you sadly have no preserved Word of God.

 

 

Are you claiming that English-speaking believers before 1611 did not have the preserved word of God?

Are you in effect suggesting that the KJV translators did not have the preserved word of God and did not translate from it?

You present no consistent, sound, scriptural case for your attempted condemnation of my view of preservation based on what the Scriptures state and teach.

I have editions of some of the actual texts used in the making of the KJV such as an edition of the Greek NT text edited by Erasmus and an edition of the Greek text edited by Stephanus.  Are you saying that they are not the preserved word of God and that the KJV translators were not translating from the preserved word of God when they used them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, wretched said:

 the KJB? The only "version" that has undergone constant attack from satan since its beginning. The world never minds the modern versions, nor do they mind Tyndale or Geneva. But satan's world has always hated the KJB.

 

Is your own unsupported claim concerning the KJV based on speculations and histories according to flawed men and their agendas? 

If the world never really minded Tyndale or Geneva, why would they mind the over 50% or 70% of the KJV that was taken from Tyndale or the Geneva?  Some KJV defenders have claimed that 70 to 90% of the KJV's New Testament came from Tyndale.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Tyndale said:

 

Are you claiming that English-speaking believers before 1611 did not have the preserved word of God?

Are you in effect suggesting that the KJV translators did not have the preserved word of God and did not translate from it?

You present no consistent, sound, scriptural case for your attempted condemnation of my view of preservation based on what the Scriptures state and teach.

I have editions of some of the actual texts used in the making of the KJV such as an edition of the Greek NT text edited by Erasmus and an edition of the Greek text edited by Stephanus.  Are you saying that they are not the preserved word of God and that the KJV translators were not translating from the preserved word of God when they used them?

You may possess copied excerpts from what are possibly the originals friend but that is it and that possibility is only based on the word you take from men as you read these books. Of course the originals were preserved up until the KJB. And yes, much of His Word is preserved in the earlier english Bibles but they are incomplete.

The foundation of your folly is the massive waste of time God has given you on this earth in pursuit of everything but hearing and doing His Word. This is the point I make over your posts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Tyndale said:

Is your own unsupported claim concerning the KJV based on speculations and histories according to flawed men and their agendas? 

If the world never really minded Tyndale or Geneva, why would they mind the over 50% or 70% of the KJV that was taken from Tyndale or the Geneva?  Some KJV defenders have claimed that 70 to 90% of the KJV's New Testament came from Tyndale.

Oh no friend, this is from my time on earth and dealing with folks like you and worse. Have you provided a testimony yet? I may have missed it but hope to be addressing someone who claims salvation by Grace through faith in our Lord Jesus Christ. Like I said above these earlier editions contain God's Words but were tried by fire and found wanting (incomplete) by God and not men.

Edited by wretched

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well NN you got an answer of sorts from him. That means that I think I am the about the only one to go unanswered, and mine was possibly the simplest to answer.

Have you ever been a member here under a different name, and if yes, what name was it?

Edited by DaveW
Phone spelling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Tyndale said:

KJV translators Lancelot Andrewes, George Abbot, and Thomas Ravis along with KJV co-editor Bishop Thomas Bilson and Archbishop Richard Bancroft, the overseer of the translating, were members of the High Commission Court. Other KJV translators were also members of these commissions.  Roland Usher's list of the commissions in the province of Canterbury included KJV translators John Bois, Arthur Lake, John Layfield, Nicolas Love, James Montague, John Overall, Sir Henry Savile, Miles Smith, and Giles Thompson (The Rise and Fall of the High Commission, pp. 345-359).  

Alexander McClure noted that Richard Bancroft "was the ruling spirit in that infamous tribunal, the High Commission Court, a sort of British Inquisition" (KJV Translators Revived, p. 217).  Thomas Fuller described Bancroft as "the soul of the high commission" (Worthies of England, p. 301).  Christopher Hill maintained that Bancroft used the High Commission Court "as a coercive instrument to enforce uniformity" (Society and Puritanism, p. 349).  Williston Walker pointed out that the High Commission Court "could examine and imprison anywhere in England and had become the right arm of episcopal authority" (History of the Christian Church, pp. 406-407).  Durham Dunlop maintained that the Court of High Commission “became a terrible instrument of tyranny and persecution in the hands of Church and State.  It fined or imprisoned its victims, confiscated their property, tortured or murdered them at will, without being amenable to appeal, or subject to any controlling authority save the Crown, whose creation it was, and whose sanguinary instrument it always proved” (Church, p. 157).  John Southerdan Burn maintained that “the whole course of the High Commission from its first arrest or summons, to the ultimate ruin, or death of its unfortunate victim, was a series of unconstitutional and illegal cruelties,--refusing a copy of the charges, insisting on the oath ex-offico, suspending, deriving, degrading, and ruining the poor wretch,--occasionally sending to prison even the lawyer who dared to defend the accused, or to question the power or legality of the Court” (The High Commission, p. vi).

KJV translators George Abbot and Lancelot Andrewes were two of the Church of England divines who urged the burning at the stake of Bartholomew Legate in March of 1611 (Paine, Men Behind the KJV, p. 142).  George Abbot even presided over the proceedings (p. 93).  The Dictionary of National Biography pointed out that Bartholomew Legate and Edward Wightman were brought before the court of George Abbot and that "Abbot was from the first resolved that no mercy should be shown them" (p. 11).  This reference work also pointed out that "Abbot was constantly in attendance in the high commission court and tried to enforce conformity in the church with consistent love of order" (p. 18).  S. H. Ford wrote that "almost canonized head of the Episcopal Church [King James] thus, in the name of Christ, authorized poor Wightman's death" (Origin of the Baptist, p. 21).  Phil Stringer observed that Wightman was burned at the stake "for declaring that baptism of infants was an abominable custom" or "for being a Baptist" (Faithful Baptist Witness, p. 7).  William Cutter wrote:  “Edward Wightman, ancestor of the American family, was condemned to death and burned at the stake, April 11, 1611, because of his Baptist faith” (New England Families, Vol. 1, p. 36). 

Andrewes was also a member of the infamous Court of High Commission and the Court of Star Chamber (Sermons, p. xxi).  William Pierce maintained that Andrewes had been “one of the agents in carrying out of Whitgift’s oppressive system and especially as a press censor” (Historical Introduction, p. 127).  While he worked on the KJV, Thomas Ravis "was highly active as a hated scourge," harassing and persecuting those who would not fully submit to the Church of England (Paine, Men Behind the KJV, p. 93).  Alexander McClure also noted that the prelate Thomas Ravis was "a fierce persecutor of the Puritans" (KJV Translators Revived, p. 150).  Geddes MacGregor observed that Ravis “swore to oust those whose Puritan leanings made them reluctant to conform” (Literary History of the Bible, p. 200). Thomas Bilson, who helped edit and revise the final draft of the KJV, also "carried on the holy warfare" against the Puritans and insisted that they wear the surplice and hood (Men Behind the KJV, p. 96).  Thomas Smith also confirmed that Bilson "treated the Puritans with uncommon severity" (Select Memoirs of the Lives, Labours, and Sufferings of those Pious and Learned English and Scottish Divines, p. 322).

Tyndale,

Thank you for giving me the references that I requested. As I do not have the above mentioned books I will have to do an internet search in order to get the material. And, since I am overseas I am not I can get them as most businesses, such as Amazon, will not mail overseas. If I can obtain a readable copy through an internet library I will do so. The collection, and study, of these referenced material will take a lot of time. 

As the background material applies only to the perceived character traits of some, not all of the men, and since they are perceived as such by writers that may have a double motive, and personal vendetta against the men involved, I think that it would involve a different thread to pursue and is a side issue from the main issue of this thread.

Alan

6 hours ago, Tyndale said:

Explanations are needed and necessary because I would disagree somewhat with some of the premises that would seem to lie behind your questions.  As I have already indicated earlier in this thread, I understand the heart of the Scripture's doctrine of preservation to apply directly to the exact, specific words that proceeded from the mouth of God by inspiration to the prophets and apostles.  In my understanding, exact word preservation or jot and tittle preservation would have to concern preservation of the original language words of Scripture.   In my opinion, you in effect would have to change the definition or meaning of preservation to attempt to use it concerning Bible translations.   If that is your definition of preservation than any language outside of the Hebrew and Greek texts cannot be be the  preserved word of God. In fact, if this is the case than the manuscripts that you have quoted that saying that they are the preserved word cannot be the preserved word of God as there are variations within them. This is exact reason why the King James translators put words in italics (which you have rejected as there are variations in the words in italics).

What is your definition of preservation?  I will take up the definition of the word preservation later as I do not want to change the subject and stray from the other questions that you have not answered.  Exact word preservation or jot and tittle preservation would have to be changed to meaning preservation, thought preservation, or dynamic equivalent preservation in order to apply it to Bible translations.  If that be the case, than your translation is not a preserved bible as you previously stated it would have to be 'every jot and tittle'.  What type of preservation are you claiming for the KJV?  The KJV does not give a literal rendering of each original language word that the KJV translators had in their underlying original language texts. Neither does any other translations; including the Greek texts. Excluding the 1611 reprint editions, present editions of the KJV would not provide a "jot and tittle" preservation of the 1611 edition of the KJV.   Exact "jot and tittle" preservation would not allow even the spelling of words to be changed.   All the actual revisions and changes made to the 1611 edition of the KJV did not involve only spelling or grammar. As I stated before, according to you absolutely no English translation, or any other language outside of Hebrew and Greek can fit your definition.

The Scriptures given by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles would be the perfect gift directly from God above.  To claim that the KJV was a perfect gift directly from God above would seem to me to be a claim for a second inspiration and regiving of the Scriptures and would in effect make God responsible for the actual errors that were found in the 1611 edition.  The 1611 edition of the KJV was not perfect. I never claimed 'second inspiration' or 're-giving' in what I said or even implied. You are misconstruing my words, intentions, thoughts, and belief. I am talking about 'preservation' not 'inspiration.'

The suggestion that there have been too many English translations would not lead to the conclusion that there should have been only one English translation.  If there should have been only one English translation, there would have been no need for the 1611 KJV.  English-speaking believers already had available before 1611 good English translations of the Scriptures such as the 1537 Matthew's Bible or the 1560 Geneva Bible.  Would God, "with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning" (James 1:17) and who is "without partiality" (James 3:17), show partiality and respect of persons to one group of English Bible translators? Again, you are implying something I never said, implied or even hinted at.

The traditional Hebrew Masoretic Old Testament text and the traditional Greek New Testament text would be the preserved word of God.  Bible translations are translations of the preserved Scriptures in the original languages. How can that be if they are not the originals?

Since God is without partiality and does not show respect of persons, I believe that the KJV is the word of God translated into English in the same sense or way that the pre-1611 English Bibles (of which the KJV is a revision) are the word of God translated into English. Is it or is it not the preserved written  word of God?

 

Tyndale,

The questions, that you avoided to answer, are very simple questions and do not require an explanation. Please answer them as asked. Please do not change the subject, please  do not misconstrue what I said concerning James 1:17 and please do not accuse me of 'double inspiration' or 'the 're-giving' of the scriptures.

Alan

5 hours ago, wretched said:

I see from your declarations of "truth" in this thread about these books you study, they carry allot of weight with you and this is the problem friend. Believe half of what you see and much less what you read of men.

I have said it before and say it again; I have personally been eyewitness to dozens of events over my lifetime that have been documented in newspapers, magazines and books. Not one single time did the writers get the details of these events straight in their documenting. I think most if they gave it thought would come to the same conclusion. Why waste precious time on the speculations and "histories" according to flawed men and their agendas?

Chances are most of what you read in these books of men is inaccurate and even fabricated originally or over time. The Spirit will show you the way and the way will always be the KJB. His Word needs no caveat, or supplement, and certainly no documented history for those with seeing eyes to understand and believe it.

And that is basically your goal here, is it not? A subtle attack vainly attempting to degrade faith in the KJB? The only "version" that has undergone constant attack from satan since its beginning. The world never minds the modern versions, nor do they mind Tyndale or Geneva. But satan's world has always hated the KJB.

I wonder why?....think about it.

So based on this admission, you sadly have no preserved Word of God. I am thankful that I do. Open your eyes to the Spirit and close them to the world's "wisdom" friend. You will do much better for the Lord when you do.

 

Tyndale,

Wretched is correct. Wretched said, "And that is basically your goal here, is it not? A subtle attack vainly attempting to degrade faith in the KJB? The only "version" that has undergone constant attack from satan since its beginning. The world never minds the modern versions, nor do they mind Tyndale or Geneva. But satan's world has always hated the KJB."

 

What is your goal in this thread?

Your whole line of reasoning leads us to think that you are attempting to degrade our faith in the KJB.

Why not attack the other versions? Why only attack the KJV?

Satan has always attacked every good gift that He gave this world. Especially the written scriptures

I agree with wretched wholeheartedly.

Alan

Edited by Alan
forgot to answer wretched's copy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, DaveW said:

Have you ever been a member here under a different name, and if yes, what name was it?

This is the second time that DaveW has asked this question. The question is pertinent to this discussion and will enable us to double-check any previous threads (and the material contained therein), on this extremely important subject.

Alan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, wretched said:

 Of course the originals were preserved up until the KJB. And yes, much of His Word is preserved in the earlier english Bibles but they are incomplete.

Where do the Scriptures themselves state or teach that God changed the preservation of the exact specific words He had given in 1611?

The preservation of the original language words of Scripture clearly did not end in 1611 since it is a fact that later editors of KJV editions used them in making hundreds of changes in the use of italics in KJV editions and in making corrections and revisions to the 1611 edition.  For example, Benjamin Blayney, editor of the standard 1769 Oxford edition of the KJV, maintained that he made use of the preserved Scriptures in the original languages in his revising of the KJV.  An unidentified man used a different edition of the Hebrew Masoretic text that was printed in the 1700's to make around 100 changes to the 1769 Oxford KJV's Old Testament in the early 1800's with the changes being first printed in Oxford KJV editions in 1829.

Is your own unsupported opinion that the early English Bibles are incomplete based on speculations and histories according to flawed men and their agendas?   Do you not apply your own stated measures that you used concerning my comments to your own claims or do you indicate a use of unjust measures or double standards as you dodge applying them to your assertions?

How was the Bishops' Bible [of which the KJV was officially a revision according to one of the rules given to the KJV translators] an incomplete Bible?  Do you prove your opinion or speculation to be true?

Did the KJV translators claim that the Bishops' Bible was an incomplete Bible?  What actual clauses or verses do you claim were added in the 1611 KJV that were supposedly missing in the Bishops' Bible?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Tyndale said:

Where do the Scriptures themselves state or teach that God changed the preservation of the exact specific words He had given in 1611?

The preservation of the original language words of Scripture clearly did not end in 1611 since it is a fact that later editors of KJV editions used them in making hundreds of changes in the use of italics in KJV editions and in making corrections and revisions to the 1611 edition.  For example, Benjamin Blayney, editor of the standard 1769 Oxford edition of the KJV, maintained that he made use of the preserved Scriptures in the original languages in his revising of the KJV.  An unidentified man used a different edition of the Hebrew Masoretic text that was printed in the 1700's to make around 100 changes to the 1769 Oxford KJV's Old Testament in the early 1800's with the changes being first printed in Oxford KJV editions in 1829.

Is your own unsupported opinion that the early English Bibles are incomplete based on speculations and histories according to flawed men and their agendas?   Do you not apply your own stated measures that you used concerning my comments to your own claims or do you indicate a use of unjust measures or double standards as you dodge applying them to your assertions?

How was the Bishops' Bible [of which the KJV was officially a revision according to one of the rules given to the KJV translators] an incomplete Bible?  Do you prove your opinion or speculation to be true?

Did the KJV translators claim that the Bishops' Bible was an incomplete Bible?  What actual clauses or verses do you claim were added in the 1611 KJV that were supposedly missing in the Bishops' Bible?

The long answer is: I don't care about any of these questions friend. And I certainly will not take more than one minute of precious time looking into other versions to make comparisons.

Still missing the point I see but if you would like to discuss important matters of salvation, assurance, eternal security, witnessing, etc I would be happy to participate........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Who's Online   1 Member, 0 Anonymous, 53 Guests (See full list)

Article Categories

About Us

Since 2001, Online Baptist has been an Independent Baptist website, and we exclusively use the King James Version of the Bible. We pride ourselves on a community that uplifts the Lord.

Contact Us

You can contact us using the following link. Contact Us or for questions regarding this website please contact @pastormatt or email James Foley at jfoley@sisqtel.net

Android App

Online Baptist has a custom App for all android users. You can download it from the Google Play store or click the following icon.

×
×
  • Create New...