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

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
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
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
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
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........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
On 4/24/2017 at 1:03 AM, Tyndale said:

While you did not answer my questions

The problem (as I see it) sir is that you have continuously ignored and/or refused to answer questions put forth to you, yet you pointed out that Pastor Markle didn't answer your questions. Your refusal to answer questions only serves to make you look untrustworthy and unreliable.

Perhaps it's me and me alone, but I see what appears to be a different style and personality in your posts on non-biblical subjects as compared to the posts that you make on biblical subjects...though I will admit that you seemed to veer from your normal "biblical-subject posting style" in your last response to me in this thread. This leads me to possibly consider that you are looking up the information that suits your purpose, compiling it, and posting it later. You appear to simply be posting what other men say, proclaim, believe, and teach. Perhaps you own all of the books that you quote from, but I've noticed one book that you neglect to quote from...the Bible. Perhaps you have quoted a verse or two, but off of the top of my head, I can't remember you having done so. Again, that only serves to make you look untrustworthy and unreliable.

Your refusal to answer questions and your continuous postings that most certainly appear to be thinly-veiled attacks against the King James Bible (or the King James only stance) only serve to make you look untrustworthy and unreliable.

So the King James translators were sinners...you pointed out some of them by name and their sins. In fact, you went to great lengths to do so when someone finally called you out on providing proof of your assertions...however...I'll go a step further and say that every one of them were sinners. If their sins are a reason not to trust the King James version, then let's just go ahead and use a Tyndale, Geneva, Bishop's...oh wait...they were all sinners too. Well, in that case, let's just get a Westcott & Hort/Vaticanus/Sinaiticus based modern version and...oh wait...they were sinners too. Well, at least the Nestle-Aland folks are continuously belting out updated versions that we can...oh wait...they're sinners too.

Oh dear...

 

Sir, after reading all of the information that you've supplied in this thread and others, you've convinced me of one thing...

...you're untrustworthy and unreliable.

We're not supposed to quote from any version other than the King James on this forum, but for your namesake...from the Tyndale bible...

Romans 16:17
I beseche you brethre marke them which cause division and geve occasions of evyll contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned: and avoyde them.
 

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps you aren't meaning to come across as attacking the King James version...but...you are coming across as attacking the King James version. I'll be avoiding you from this point forward Tyndale...at this point and from everything that I've seen, I don't even know if I'd be willing to trust your canning advice

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

And I still get ignored......

A simple question that would take but a minute to answer, and yet mr tyndale appears unwilling or unable to answer me.

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

Surely this is not too difficult to answer..........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
4 hours ago, wretched said:

The long answer is: I don't care about any of these questions friend.

Does that suggest that you do not care about the truth and simply try to suggest that I need to accept unproven opinions of men?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
3 hours ago, No Nicolaitans said:

The problem (as I see it) sir is that you have continuously ignored and/or refused to answer questions put forth to you. Your refusal to answer questions only serves to make you look untrustworthy and unreliable.

 

You jump to wrong conclusions.  I have actually answered several questions and requests.  While one poster answered some of my questions, other posters do not answer my questions to them.  Would you suggest that those who do not answer my questions look untrustworthy and unreliable?   If not, is a double standard being suggested?

Some questions are invalid when they assume something to be true that is not actually true.  Questions can also be answered with questions.

Why would I desire to answer the questions of those who would seem to attack my integrity, honesty, and faith in God and in the Scriptures and that do not discuss what I actually stated?

It has not been demonstrated that anything I posted is actually untrustworthy and unreliable so evidently I am merely accused based on subjective opinions of men.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Personally, I am not worthy to answer your questions - they are too high for me. I am just a dumb bloke.

My question however is a simple one that can be answered simply and it carries no inherent slight or accusation.

It is a simple request for information.

Have you ever been registered here under another username, and if yes, what was the username?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
6 hours ago, Tyndale said:

Does that suggest that you do not care about the truth and simply try to suggest that I need to accept unproven opinions of men?

You have not one time brought forth any "truth" my friend.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
12 hours ago, wretched said:

You have not one time brought forth any "truth" my friend.

That is obviously an incorrect claim although you may not admit it.  According to a consistent application of your very own words, the truths that I have cited directly from the KJV would not be truth.   Did you not think about what you stated before you posted it?  Did you forget the post where I cited Luke 16:10 in response to a poster who seemed to attempt to trivialize the presenting of facts and details from editions of the KJV?  Are you intentionally skipping over the scriptural truths to which I have appealed?  Is your unsupported, broad-sweeping allegation against me an attempt to avoid the truth that you have not actually demonstrated that I supposedly reject any scriptural truth?  I disagree with some non-scriptural opinions based on what I consider to be scripturally-based reasons so is that a justification for the unsupported harsh allegations against me?

Luke 16:10

He that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in much: and he that is unjust in the least is unjust also in much.

The scripture references in some of my statements are to verses in the KJV, and I have directly cited verses from the KJV.  A number of my points or statements clearly use words and phrases from the KJV and are based on scriptural truths.  Do you not recognize the phrases and terms from the KJV in my statements?  For one example, would your statement suggest that you do not consider the scriptural truth that I cited that God is without partiality and does not show respect of persons to be truth?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Why is it so hard for you answer my question?

Simple "Yes, and my previous username was ...... but I forgot my password" or whatever reason, or "No, never signed up here before".

 

Not hard, but I am just getting ignored.

You will hurt my feelings soon....... :laugh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
On ‎4‎/‎27‎/‎2017 at 9:56 AM, No Nicolaitans said:

 

Sir, after reading all of the information that you've supplied in this thread and others, you've convinced me of one thing...

...you're untrustworthy and unreliable.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

Your posts do not suggest that you actually give me the benefit of the doubt.  You have not demonstrated that any of the information that I have posted is untrustworthy and unreliable, but yet you jump to your hasty unsupported allegation against me.  I would welcome all posters checking out the information for themselves.  I try not to post any claim concerning the KJV that I cannot support or back up.  When a poster asked for the evidence or documentation for a statement that I made, I gladly provided it.   If any assertion that I post is factually incorrect or is unscriptural, I would welcome the sound or scriptural evidence that shows that so that I could correct it.

It appears that I am attacked or accused by some for being willing to back up what I claim in obedience to a scriptural truth [prove all things--1 Thess. 5:21] and for asking other posters to back up what they claim.  

The truth remains the truth regardless of who states it.   Attacks on a person stating accurate or true information does not actually answer or refute what was stated. 

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...