Jump to content
  • Welcome Guest

    For an ad free experience on Online Baptist, Please login or register for free

Preservation and the KJV


Recommended Posts

  • Members
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

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
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
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
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.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
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).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
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.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
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.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
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
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...