Bishops' Bible: no less perfect than KJV?

In the thread entitled "Final Authority and Final canonization,"

Is Gail Riplinger's statement quoted above accurate and reliable?

Is the Bishops' Bible actually "no less perfect, pure, and true than the KJV"?

In this thread, evidence will be provided from the Bishops' Bible so readers can evaluate whether her claims are correct.

Gail Riplinger maintained: “The previous Bishops’ Bible (c1568-1611) was no less perfect, pure, and true than the KJV” (In Awe of Thy Word, p. 17).

Gail Riplinger asserted: “According to the rules of translation, the [KJV] translators’ final authority was early English Bibles, particularly the Bishops’” (Hidden History of the English Scriptures, p. 41).

Riplinger wrote: “In the main, the Bishops’ Bible is the same as all previous English Bibles” (In Awe of Thy Word, p. 567). She proposed that “the Bishops’ Bible is the textual twin of the KJV” (p. 164). She observed: The KJV translators generally followed the grammatical elements and word order (syntax) of the Bishops’ Bible. This was their foundation and they seldom varied from it” (p. 132). She also commented: “Both the Bishops’ and the KJV are literal, word-for-word renderings of the Greek text and show all words, even if they seem repetitive” (p. 288).

Riplinger asserted: “Their prime authority was the Bishops’ Bible which carried forth the words of the English Bible since its genesis in Acts 2. The words of the 1611 English Bible (KJB) had their origin in languages and words which were given through the Holy Ghost‘s gift of tongues in Acts 2” (Hazardous Materials, p. 690).

 

additions in Bishops' Bible

Glenn Conjurske pointed out: “One evident blemish of the Bishops’ Bible lies in its frequent flat and unnecessary additions in brackets [or italics]” (Olde Paths, March, 1996, p. 57). Blackford Condit maintained that “the text of the Bishops’ Bible is weakened still more by the introduction of explanatory words and phrases; a seeming attempt to expound as well as translate the original text” (History, p. 286). Concerning the Bishops‘ Bible, Scrivener asserted that “it is one of the most considerable faults of this not very successful version, that its authors assumed a liberty of running into paraphrase” (Authorized Edition, p. 62).

The following examples should support and confirm the above statements. Some of the additions may have first been added in the Great Bible or another earlier English Bible. The Bishops’ Bible added the words “in companies” at Genesis 14:15. It added: “shall he bear out“ (Lev. 4:11), “of the altar“ (Num. 18:9), “Ye shall number the people“ (Num. 26:4), “That is to wit“ (Num. 31:43), and “as upon an horse“ (Deut. 32:26) Some other example additions include the following: “otherwise called“ (Jud. 8:35), “so shall my house be, but not“ (2 Sam. 23:4), “as namely” (1 Kings 6:29), “that is to wit” (1 Kings 9:10), “offence which Solomon hath committed“ (1 Kings 11:39), “with your cry” (1 Kings 18:27), “that came in his way” (1 Kings 20:20), “in the ceremonies“ (2 Kings 17:8), “I beseech thee” (2 Kings 19:16), “O thou king of Assyria“ (2 Kings 19:21), “even so deal with me“ (2 Chron. 2:3), and “shall this building be“ (2 Chron. 2:6). At the end of Job 9:24, it added: “that can shew the contrary.“ It added “to God” at Job 35:14. In the middle of Psalm 139:20, this addition is found: “thou art O God.“ At the end of Isaiah 1:7, it added: “in the time of war.“ After the word “replenish” at Isaiah 2:6, it added “with evils,“ and it added “the wicked ones of” before “the earth” at the end of Isaiah 2:19 and 2:21. In the middle of Isaiah 3:14, this addition is found: “and shall say to them.“ These words are found in a different size type at the end of Isaiah 3:18: “after the fashion of the moon.“ In the middle of Isaiah 8:19, these additional words are found: “then make them this answer.“ At the beginning of Jeremiah 4:22, it added: “Nevertheless, this shall come upon them.“ At Jeremiah 28:9, it has this addition: “if God hath sent them in very deed.“ It added “when ye had gotten the victory” at the end of Jeremiah 50:11. At the end of Jeremiah 50:28, it added “yea, a voice of them that cry against Babylon.“ At Ezekiel 28:14, it added this phrase: “in this dignity.“ The words “their sacrifices” were added at the end of Ezekiel 40:41. At Ezekiel 45:2, the Bishops’ Bible has the following two additions in a different size type: “in length” and “in breadth.” This chapter has another addition [“a portion shall be” (45:7)]. At the beginning of Daniel 7:20, six words were added [“I desired …to know the truth”]. After “Loruhamah” in Hosea 1:6, it added: “that is, not obtaining mercy.“ Likewise, it added after “Loammi” in Hosea 1:9: “that is, not my people.“ More Old Testament examples could be given.

More such examples of additions are also found in its New Testament. Would Bradley, Riplinger, and other KJV-only advocates consider the Bishops' Bible's addition at John 18:13 ["And Annas sent Christ bound unto Caiaphas the high priest"] to be a faithful or perfect translation? At John 18:22, the Bishops' Bible has the rendering "smote Jesus with a rod." The Bishops’ Bible inserted “the fishers” at Matthew 13:48. At Matthew 26:30, the Bishops’ began as follows: "when they had praised God." After “preparing” at John 19:31, it inserted “of the Sabboth.“ It added "of the synagogue" in italics or a different size type at Matthew 9:18 and 9:23, "of God" at Matthew 26:64, "of the gospel" at Mark 2:2, “from the region which is“ at Mark 3:8, “at his feet“ at Mark 3:11 and Luke 8:47, “And said“ at Mark 10:7, “of God“ at Mark 14:62, “of the city“ at Mark 15:43, “unto them“ at Luke 8:10, “of their sins” at Luke 10:13, “at the doors“ at Luke 14:35, “and no man gave unto him“ at Luke 16:21, “the means“ at John 5:16, “the means“ at John 6:57, “as though he heard them not” at John 8:6, “on high“ at John 8:28, “unto you“ at John 16:15, “any question“ at John 16:30, “unto them“ at Acts 2:41, “unto him“ at Acts 8:37, “one Scripture with another“ at Acts 9:22, “that is“ at Acts 15:22, “that is to say“ at Acts 15:29, “of the Lord“ at Acts 19:9, “that is to say“ at Acts 28:25, “the inheritance given“ at Romans 4:16, “election“ at Romans 9:16, “I mean“ at Romans 9:24, “nations“ at Romans 11:32, “not only before God, but also“ at Romans 12:17, "I did not mean" at 1 Corinthians 5:10, and “the shedding of“ at Hebrews 12:4. At the end of 1 Corinthians 9:25, it added “to obtain” before “an incorruptible” and “crown” after it. At the end of Revelation 9:11, it added “that is to say, a destroyer.“

Scrivener wrote: “In some places, they [referring to the interpolations or additions from the Latin Vulgate found in the Great Bible] are retained” in the Bishops’ Bible (Supplement, p. 96). At Luke 16:21, the Bishops’ Bible kept the following added words in the Great Bible: “and no man gave unto him.” The Bishops’ Bible kept added words [“all the whole”] at John 12:19 from the Great Bible. Likewise, the added words [“not only before God, but also”] in the Great Bible at Romans 12:17 are retained in the Bishops’ Bible. Scrivener maintained that “unto them” at Matthew 26:15 is “wrongly added by Cranmer’s [Great], Bishops, [and] AV from the [Latin] Vulgate (p. 299).

The actual facts concerning the Bishops’ Bible raise some interesting questions. If the KJV kept one or more of the additions found in the Bishops’ Bible, should it have kept them all? Are any of these examples of over-translation where the translators added words without valid support from the text? Would these additions in the Bishops’ Bible be considered “foreign matter?“ When the water of the Bishops’ Bible was poured out into the KJV, did it remain the same water? Was the Bishops’ Bible the “pure” source on which the KJV should have been based? Can the water of the Bishops’ Bible poured into the KJV be both salt water and fresh? If the water of the Bishops’ Bible was mixed with any additions, impurities, errors, or mistranslations, by what miraculous process were they removed perfectly as that water was poured into the KJV? When the KJV translators kept some of these additions from the Bishops’ Bible, did God also add them to His Word in Heaven according to a consistent application of KJV-only reasoning?

Some of these examples would seem to be dynamic equivalencies according to a consistent application of KJV-only reasoning. How many words are found in the Bishops’ Bible that are left out of the KJV? On what authority and consistent basis did the KJV translators remove added words found in the Bishops’ Bible at some verses but keep the added words at other verses? According to KJV-only reasoning, was the KJV a revision of an earlier English Bible that had many dynamic equivalencies? According to a consistent application of KJV-only reasoning, was the KJV a revision of an earlier Bible that was not self-attesting and self-authenticating? According to a consistent application of some KJV-only claims, was the KJV a revision of an earlier English Bible made by “crooked thieving Bible correctors” or “Bible correcting wolves in sheep’s clothing?” According to KJV-only reasoning, was the KJV a revision of an earlier English Bible that was not profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness?