Anglican Version

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by Amy.G, Jun 18, 2010.

  1. Amy.G

    Amy.G
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2006
    Messages:
    13,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    This statement was made in another thread:
    I am appalled that some on this board actually believe that Baptists should not use the KJV.

    Can anyone show that the KJV promotes Anglican doctrine, such as infant baptism or baptismal regeneration, the mass, popes, Mary worship, ect?
     
  2. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    Amy, it would do you good to research WHY the Anglicans wanted a new translation (not actually new - 85% from previous translations). The Geneva Bible was THE most widely accepted and beloved, but not only was a good translation but had extensive notes that spoke against the divine right of kings, church/state rule, etc

    The Anglicans tried to replace the Geneva with the Bishops (Great) Bible but it never caught on. The Catholics came out with their own English translation and the impetus to find a "new" (yes, the new translation one after another race began centuries ago, not in the 1970's :) ) translation acceptable to the Crown/Anglican Church. Hence the AV1611.

    They dropped all anti-monarchial material. They added (sucked from their thumb without any support in any Hebrew/Greek text) phrases that were familiar Crown/Church language - "God save the King" would be an example of spurious words the Anglicans added.

    The King ordered that the liturgical words be NOT translated, but kept so that they could be "interpreted" the way the Anglicans desired. So we have confusing generic language to "not offend" but makes us mess for us Baptists - like "bishop" or "baptize" or even "church". All designed to help the Anglican/Monarchy.

    There were ONLY Anglicans translating. The dissenters, puritans, pilgrims, Baptists, et al repudiated and would not accept this "government" edition. When the Pilgrims landed in New England, no AV was with them; only the Geneva.

    Then the Anglican/Crown forbid the printing, importation and distribution of the Geneva to FORCE the populace to accept the Anglican translation. By a generation later, there was not much else anyone could do.

    An unbiased study of the English Bible shows why Baptists had no love nor anything to do with the Anglican version, much less the nonsense today that it is the ONLY true translation. Peter Ruckman, great proponent of the AV, states that it corrects the Greek. Jack Hyles, guru to many ifb'ers wrote (still in print today) that a person could not be saved using any other.

    This is the evil fruit of the AV only mentality. And why we today repudiate such error.
     
  3. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    BTW, I do not condemn folks for using the AV or later KJV revision. I use the Oxford 1769 revision myself and have memorized more than 1000 verses from it. The lilt and flow of the language is unparalleled, even if the grammar or word choices are now outdated and confusing.

    We just stated that it was the Crown/Anglican translation and rejected by Baptists in 1611 as inferior. There are far more accurate and faithful modern translations that could be used.

    But if one wanted to only use the AV, that is their choice (soul liberty is a Baptist distinctive). But if they say, then, that I am not saved since I used a ASV1901 when I was converted or that my Greek text that has actual God-breathed words is somehow inferior and needs correcting by the AV, then I take up the sword.
     
  4. Amy.G

    Amy.G
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2006
    Messages:
    13,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    I have read the history of the English bible including the KJV, so I am not ignorant.

    You have said that Baptists should not use the KJV because it is an "Anglican" version, yet you provided no scripture from the KJV to prove that the Anglicans were trying to promote their doctrine, which is what I asked you to do.

    I am not KJVO. I prefer the line of manuscripts that it is translated from. I do see that modern versions, or those that are translated from a different set of texts, are more Anglican than the KJV.

    Acts 8:37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.


    Why would Anglicans add this verse? It goes against baptismal regeneration. And yet the versions that come from the Alexandrian line omit it, making modern versions more Anglican than the KJV.


    You have a hatred for the Anglican church and it is affecting your judgment regarding the KJV.
     
  5. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    Huh? I used some simple illustrations - the fictional adding of "God save the King" (5 times if you need references) and the use of the high church terms/language like bishop and bishoprick, baptize, etc

    The AV used that verse because it was in the Greek text. Most other translations omit it because it is NOT in the Greek text that is far older and more accurate and faithful to the originals.

    You may think the Eastern Orthodox/Catholic texts are better, but I would 100% disagree. There are MORE of them, of course, because the copies of copies of copies (all adding and compounding the errors) seem to be weightier. Hey, the Orthodox use Greek texts while the rest of Christianity shifted to Latin. The debate between texts is like the "only" debate - few now hold to the superiority of the Eastern Orthodox family texts. But a vocal few (of course, all supporters of the "perfect" KJV) for sure!!

    So, do Baptists use "God save the King"? Do Baptists talk about bishops in their bishopricks? These are obvious Crown/Anglican language choices totally foreign in my church today!
     
  6. Jerome

    Jerome
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2006
    Messages:
    5,629
    Likes Received:
    45
    Baptize is a high church term? :laugh:
    And seems like I recall seeing the "totally foreign Crown/Anglican" word bishop in the Baptist Confession on your own church website:laugh:

    Uh, didn't your "beloved" Geneva Bible use the phrase "God saue the king" more times than the KJB? Yet you are trying to pin the adding of it on some devious Anglican schemers:laugh:
     
  7. Jim1999

    Jim1999
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/Jim1999.jpg>

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2002
    Messages:
    15,460
    Likes Received:
    0
    Here is a quote from Mr. Spurgeon, on, of all the things, "the beloved Authorized Version."

    You cannot change Holy Scripture. You may arrive more and more accurately at the
    original text; but for all practical purposes the text we have is correct enough, and
    our old Authorized Version is a sound one. 1890.155

    Methinks, that there are some who wouldn't even know a Church of England if it fell on them.

    Cheers,

    and God save the Queen,

    Jim
     
  8. Jerome

    Jerome
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2006
    Messages:
    5,629
    Likes Received:
    45
    Not true.
    The Pilgrim Hall Museum has in its collections the KJB that John Alden brought over on the Mayflower:thumbs:

    King James Bible Was on the Mayflower
     
  9. Amy.G

    Amy.G
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2006
    Messages:
    13,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    How exactly do those words affect doctrine? Surely if what you say is true, there would have been Anglican doctrine slipped into the KJV translation. Instead what we see is a faithful translation of the original languages. So what if they used archaic words like "bishop"?




    And those copies of copies of copies agree with one another, proving they were not added to down through the years.



    Since you prefer the ESV, tell me if these language choices are spoken by you or your church.

    Amo 4:6 "I gave you cleanness of teeth in all your cities, and lack of bread in all your places, yet you did not return to me," declares the Lord .


    Psa 69:23 Let their eyes be darkened, so that they cannot see, and make their loins tremble continually.


    Psa 94:9 He who planted the ear, does he not hear? He who formed the eye, does he not see?


    Mar 1:2 As it is written in Isaiah the prophet, "Behold, I send my messenger before your face, who will prepare your way,



    All of these verses in the ESV use the same archaic terms as the KJV. I guess that makes the ESV Anglican. :laugh:
     
  10. Amy.G

    Amy.G
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2006
    Messages:
    13,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    If Baptists should not use the KJV, why do you use it?
     
  11. Trotter

    Trotter
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/6412.jpg>

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2003
    Messages:
    4,815
    Likes Received:
    0
    The Oxford 1768 IS a KJV, Amy. It's just a specific edition of it. ;)
     
  12. Amy.G

    Amy.G
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2006
    Messages:
    13,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    I know that. What's your point? Bob said that using the Anglican version is something that Baptists shouldn't do, yet he does. I want to know why.
     
  13. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    I love my King James translation of the scriptures. A copy I have had and used since 1975 is always open on my desk and I use it constantly.

    There are, however, some historical facts that make me wonder if those of us who are Baptists would have responded to it had we been alive in 1611.

    1. There was an excellent non-government sponsored translation available. It had been around for fifty years and was in common use among the separatists and non-conformists, including the Baptists.

    2. It was translated and printed at the command of a secular government.

    3. The translating work was done by the official state church.

    4. To placate the large Romanist population it included the Apocrypha and referenced it in its daily reading schedule and cross references.

    5. Previous translations were harried out of existence by the state.

    Can you foresee any circumstance where you would have accepted this translation if you were alive in 1611?
     
  14. Jim1999

    Jim1999
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/Jim1999.jpg>

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2002
    Messages:
    15,460
    Likes Received:
    0
    I would offer this:

    Tyndale used a Greek text for his translation. The first published Greek New Testament appeared in the year 1516. It was edited by Erasmus, a Dutch scholar. Erasmus had at his disposal no more than six Greek manuscripts (we have thousands at our disposal today). These manuscripts were part of what is called the Byzantine text family.

    What makes any Greek text more reliable than the English versions we have and use? Why is it so important to be able to read Koine Greek, If we understand English better?

    I am not arguing against scholarship or learning the languages, as we did in seminary. If I learn Greek and Hebrew absolutely, I still can't assure anyone that I have the original in my hands any more than the man who produces a reliable Latin version.

    At least the King James version was made available to all because the Church of England planted it in every lecturn and every church library. I am not so sure the same results would have been achieved in any other country.

    Cheers,

    Jim
     
  15. TomVols

    TomVols
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,170
    Likes Received:
    0
    Amy, I'm just wondering, with all due humility and respect, why do you ask questions if you are going to provide the answers? What's the point? I commend those who answer you for having the patience for chasing their tails.
    So illogical it doesn't even deserve a response.

    Somehow, this all gets lost in the mix and it's a very appropriate question. The one thing hard to answer is the governmental questions since we're not exactly level par with the Brits in terms of govt. After all, we have a king :tongue3:
     
  16. TCassidy

    TCassidy
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    12,215
    Likes Received:
    1,318
    Amy, don't worry too much about what my good friend Dr. Bob has to say. He likes to post provocative pontifications without bothering to first discover the actual facts. He also likes to engage in the logical fallacy of poisoning the well by way of guilt by association.

    For the record, Dr. Bob is simply wrong about the makeup of the translation committees. In fact it was the Puritans who presented the Millenary Petition to King James in 1604 which resulted in the Hampton Court Conference which, in turn, resulted in the translation of the Authorized Version.

    Also, for the record, many of the translators were Puritans, including Dr. John Reynolds, who worked on the translation until the time of his death. By the way, it was this same Puritan, John Reynolds, who presented the Millenary Petition to King James in the first place.

    As to Dr. Bob's disdain for words like "church" and "baptize" while calling himself a Baptist, pastoring a church, and baptizing new converts seems more than just a bit disingenuous. :)

    Dr. Bob likes to throw out prejudicial invectives like "Anglican" translation, etc., but he fails to point out the Anglican Communion, at that time, was almost evenly divided between "High Church" Anglicans (Episcopalians) and "Chapel" Anglicans (Puritans). The Puritans dominated the translation committees.

    In fact the Anglican Statement of Faith was the basis of the First and Second London Confessions of Faith held in such high esteem by none other than Dr. Bob himself. :)
     
  17. Amy.G

    Amy.G
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2006
    Messages:
    13,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thank you! I was feeling very alone! :)
     
  18. Amy.G

    Amy.G
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2006
    Messages:
    13,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    Tom, Dr. Bob made an outrageous statement. Surely we can agree on that. He said Baptists should not use the KJV because of it's Anglican slant. I merely asked him to explain this statement and provide proof that the KJV is in any way promoting the Anglican doctrine that he says we should all avoid.

    I have yet to see a response from him.


    My "answers" were merely points made to show how ridiculous and hypocritical his statement was considering he himself (a Baptist) uses the KJV.
     
  19. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,158
    Likes Received:
    322
    He did e.g. Does your local church support the office of "bishop"?

    In 1611 (and even today in some Anglo-Catholic churches) the communion service is called the Eucharist Service and yes, even "the Mass".
    They believe in the Real Presence but call it Consubstantiation rather than Transubstantiation.

    They have learned wel from their Roman parent the art of double-talk.

    Thye hold to a form of baptismal regeneration. Even in their moder version of the 39 Articles of Religion, pado-baptism is promoted.

    I believe Dr. Bob's point is not so much against the KJV but to remind us from whence it came and also as a proof against the radical doctrines of the KJVO movement.

    Secondary Inspiration which logically comes out of the Anglican succession of "apostles" back to the original 12. Only apostles and prophets having this authority of inspiration.

    Advanced revelation which most KJVO folks clam to reject. However the proof is when one asks "is the word 'easter' appropriate in Acts 12:4?

    A yes answer is evidence of a belief in "advanced revelation", a doctrine conceived by a KJVO leader which says that even the "mistakes" in the KJV are a form of inspired reveation from God given to the tanslators.

    To be sure it's probably not what the translators had in mind. We don't know why they chose the word because they didn't justify it in their documenting writings.
    Some have surmised that it was to please the king. In any event it's not proper (IMO). Anyway this is just an example.

    Also the inclusion of verses in the Catholic Vulgate missing from the Traditional Greek texts (i.e 1 John 5:7).

    Also Dr Bob has mentioned that the original AV contained the heretical "Apocrypha" and to this day should legally be included in the AV.

    Personally I believe the Church of England to be a satellite of the Church of Rome since to this day many (called "high church") long to return and contain/practice romish errors.

    One last thing, compare the Douay-Rheims, the Catholic English Version contemporary wth the AV. There is upwards to and exceeding a 90% word-for-word agreement with the AV NT and the Rheims NT.

    However The Rheims NT was published in 1582.

    So, just a reminder that this Anglican version/translation of the Bible has had some romish connection (the Apocrypha, The book of Common Prayer - the Anglo Catholic version of a missal used to follow the mass published separately but along with it), in addition, both the Roman and the Anglo-Catholic church persecuted Baptists.

    RE: The Apcrypha in the modern 39 Articles of Religion: "And the other Books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners"

    I would give Dr Bob some slack.


    HankD
     
    #19 HankD, Jun 20, 2010
    Last edited: Jun 20, 2010
  20. TCassidy

    TCassidy
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    12,215
    Likes Received:
    1,318
    Yes. Biblically understood the office of bishop speaks of the pastor who has oversight, guardianship, of the flock of God.
    Irrelevant to the discussion.
    Argumentum ad hominem.
    Also irrelevant to the discussion.
    That may have been his intent, but he failed to fact check prior to posting. What he said was, for the most part, simply wrong. :)
    Irrelevant to the discussion.
    If you would so some fact checking too you would note that the word "easter" in 1611 also meant "The Jewish Passover" (Oxford English Dictionary).
    That is simply an untrue personal attack. I believe in 1611, the word "easter" was appropriate and I don't believe in "advanced revelation." I also know that Tyndale, Matthews, The Great Bible, and the Bishops Bible all use the word easter in this context. Please don't engage in untruthful name calling. It is beneath you.
    Again, just a little study would show you the two things I pointed out above.
    A poor one.
    Read "Translating for King James" for some insight into the inclusion of the comma and the reasons for it.
    Yes, and no. There is no legal reason to include the Apocrypha in today's printings of the KJV. Also the Apocrypha was NOT included in the Old Testament as it is in the Catholic bibles. It was segregated between the testaments to show that it was not scripture and did not belong in the main body of the testament.
    Again you ignore the fact that it was the Puritans, not the High Church Anglicans, who were instrumental in getting the AV translated.
    All that proves is that both are 90% good translation.
    And Tyndale in 1526.
    Again you engage in the logical fallacy of guilt by association. The translators were largely Puritans, hated Rome, and left England to avoid the persecutions.
    Uh, finish the quote! Prior to your out of context quote we read "In the name of the Holy Scripture we do understand those canonical Books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church." Followed by a list of the same books we consider canon. Then we read, following your partial quote, "but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine; such are these following:" followed by the Apocryphal books listed.

    Hank, I am surprised at you. In the past you did not exhibit such a lack of candor.
    Dr. Bob always gets plenty of slack, but the truth is important. More important than slack. :)
     

Share This Page

Loading...