Can a KJVO explain this anglican influence in the KJV?

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by Daniel David, Jan 14, 2004.

  1. Daniel David

    Daniel David
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Messages:
    5,316
    Likes Received:
    0
    Please follow closely:

    Acts 1:20(b)
    ... and His BISHOPRIC let another take.

    Okay, now read this one:

    Psalm 109:8(b)
    ... and let another take his OFFICE .

    Now, as far as I can tell, OFFICE is not the same thing as BISHOPRIC, unless you are an anglican. It is supposed to be a direct quote.

    Also, I don't like the way the KJV translators altered what the text said in Psalm 109:8. Under what authority (besides the queer king's) did the translators have to CHANGE God's word? What is different is not the same, we are all told by the KJVO crowd.

    Now, are there any KJVO BAPTISTS who agree with this translation?
     
  2. Daniel David

    Daniel David
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Messages:
    5,316
    Likes Received:
    0
    I just wanted to point out that the NKJV and the NASB have it translated correctly. But, of course you already knew that.
     
  3. Archangel7

    Archangel7
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2003
    Messages:
    513
    Likes Received:
    0
    The Geneva Bible translates both verses the same way:

    "...Let another take his charge." (Ac. 1:20, Geneva)

    "...let another take his charge." (Psa. 109:8, Geneva)
     
  4. Pastor KevinR

    Pastor KevinR
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2001
    Messages:
    741
    Likes Received:
    0
    Matthew 3:11 "I indeed baptize you with water..." Anglicans believe in baptismal regeneration, hence "with water". I am not at all saying this is a bad translation, but it could have been translated "in water"...as Baptist, we baptize in water. (of course there's the transliteration of the word, "baptize")..the NIV also uses the word, "with water", but has a footnote, or "in" (water). and in fairness, the NIV does not have the Anglican influence over it as the AV1611 does.
     
  5. timothy 1769

    timothy 1769
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    1,323
    Likes Received:
    0
    Originally posted by Daniel David:
    Now, as far as I can tell, OFFICE is not the same thing as BISHOPRIC, unless you are an anglican.

    This site is great, www.dictionary.com, also try Webster's 1828.
     
  6. Pastor KevinR

    Pastor KevinR
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2001
    Messages:
    741
    Likes Received:
    0
    Or better yet, a Vines Exposity Dictionary or Stong's will define what these words are based upon, i.e. Greek and Hebrew. :D
     
  7. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    I've heard that ARCHBISHOP BANCROFT ordered the words "bishoprick" & "office" used as cited in this thread. I don't have time right now to research this, but perhaps another reader will.

    What makes me have a little doubt about this point is that Banny died in 1610 before the AV was finished. The translators could've removed those words before they completed their work had they so chosen.

    As for KJ being gay, I understand this accusation was made years after his death. What IS known for sure is that he was the father of SEVEN children. If he were indeed a "switch hitter", he was a BUSY one, that's for sure! And it doesn't matter if he were gay, or if he worshipped the Thames River; he only AUTHORIZED the making of the AV. He did NOT take any part in its making except letting it be known that he despised the Geneva Bible. The 14 "King's Rules" which the translators were to follow were actually written by Bancroft, who persuaded KJ to authorize them. If there was any baleful influence over the AV, it was from Bancroft, who wasn't known to exactly follow the principles of Scripture to the letter, nor was he exactly friendly with the Baptists of his day.(See his acts while he presided over the Court of High Commission)

    As for "baptize"-I believe we ALL know that the Greek "baptizmo" means "immerse". However, we use the term "baptize" for the SPECIAL ceremonial immersion in water, commanded by Jesus, to signify one's becoming a Christian, to separate THIS immersion from any other immersion we may undergo while going swimming, etc. I see no prob with keeping this term in Scripture.
     
  8. timothy 1769

    timothy 1769
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    1,323
    Likes Received:
    0
    robycop3: As for "baptize"-I believe we ALL know that the Greek "baptizmo" means "immerse".

    Luk 11:37 And as he spake, a certain Pharisee besought him to dine with him: and he went in, and sat down to meat.
    Luk 11:38 And when the Pharisee saw it, he marvelled that he had not first washed(baptizo) before dinner.

    Would the Pharisee really have expected Jesus to immerse himself before dinner? or perhaps just wash his hands? Almost certainly he didn't have a mikveh in his dining room!
     
  9. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    I believe this is a verse where context comes into play, here from Matthew 15:2. Most of the people of that time didn't have running water in their homes, so they most likely immersed their hands into a bowl of water to wash'em.

    Hey, having a mikveh in the living room sounds like a KEWL idea! If I were to install one, I'd be the FIRST in the 'hood to do so! (Don't know about EMPTYING it, though!)
     
  10. Pastor KevinR

    Pastor KevinR
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2001
    Messages:
    741
    Likes Received:
    0
    For whatever it's worth, some see "to baptize" as sprinkle or christen, we as Baptists see it as "to immerse" or "to dip". According to Rick Norris, there was a Baptist revision of the KJV in the 1800's that substituted the word "immerse" for "baptize". (1842 and 1847).
     
  11. timothy 1769

    timothy 1769
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    1,323
    Likes Received:
    0
    I believe this is a verse where context comes into play, here from Matthew 15:2. Most of the people of that time didn't have running water in their homes, so they most likely immersed their hands into a bowl of water to wash'em.

    Hey, having a mikveh in the living room sounds like a KEWL idea! If I were to install one, I'd be the FIRST in the 'hood to do so! (Don't know about EMPTYING it, though!)
    </font>[/QUOTE]The Jewish practice today, and I assume back then too, was to pour water over one's hands before eating. It's quite an elaborate little ritual. One takes a little two handled cup, fills it with water, pours water on the right hand with the left, passes the cup to the right hand and pours water on the left, and continues passing and pouring until each hand has been poured on three times. Then one holds up one's hands and says: Baruch atah Hashem elokeinu melech haolam asher kidshanu b'mitzvosav vitzivanu al netilas yadayim (Blessed are you, Lord God of the universe, who gaves us His commandments and commanded us to wash hands) and then the hands are dried off. At this point, you shouldn't speak (except to respond Amen to a blessing) until you eat some bread. Back when I did this sort of thing I had a special, beautifully embroidered 'al netilas yadayim' towel. These days its just a dishrag. [​IMG]
     
  12. mesly

    mesly
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2002
    Messages:
    283
    Likes Received:
    0
    I have posted this link before on the BB, so forgive me if you have read this already, but it seems appropriate given the topic of this thread.

    The Great Ecclesiatical Conspiracy

    I am not affiliated with the authors of this in any way and don't necessarily endorse everything they teach, but it does make for an interesting read.
     
  13. Refreshed

    Refreshed
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Messages:
    901
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hey, that's some pretty neat info there, Bro. Tim. [​IMG]

    Jason
     
  14. Daniel David

    Daniel David
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Messages:
    5,316
    Likes Received:
    0
    People, stay focused. Already the topic has been lost.

    Timothy, stop playing the part of the blind KJVO advocate. You and I have gone back and forth ad nauseum about the NASB and the Galatians 3 and Genesis 12 reference to the seed/descendants. You have maintained that the NASB did not follow what Genesis said.

    I am calling you and every other KJVO on the carpet for the double standard theory of yours.

    The O.T. (in the KJV) clearly says OFFICE.

    The N.T. (in the KJV) says BISHOPRIC. That is ANGLICAN.

    This is either an anglican attempt at influencing what the greek actually said, or it is an error.

    Why didn't they just translate it OFFICE?

    Wake up KJVOs! Truth should not be rejected.
     
  15. Taufgesinnter

    Taufgesinnter
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2003
    Messages:
    1,135
    Likes Received:
    0
    Here is Psalm 109:8 as it reads in the Bible used by the early church: genethetosan ai emerai autou oligai, kai ten episkopen autou laboi heteros.

    Here is Acts 1:20 as it reads in the Greek: gegraptai gar en biblo psalmon genetheto e epaulis autou eremos kai me esto o katoikon en aute kai ten episkopen autou laboi heteros.

    It looks like a pretty exact quote to me. Note the similarity of the word episkopen to episkopos (bishop)--thus, "bishopric" (the office of a bishop).

    But then, in terms of polity, the early church was already episcopal in the first century during the time of the apostles (see Clement, e.g.).
     
  16. Daniel David

    Daniel David
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Messages:
    5,316
    Likes Received:
    0
    Similarity is not the same thing. I am talking to KJVOs here. If it isn't exactly according to them, it is inferior, etc.

    This is another evidence of ANGLICAN influence. I still cannot for the life of me understand why BAPTISTS use this version.

    They persecuted us, remember? Yet so many 'baptists' use their bible?

    Tauf, why didn't they translate it exactly, like the NKJV and NASB do?
     
  17. tinytim

    tinytim
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/tim2.jpg>

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2003
    Messages:
    11,250
    Likes Received:
    0
    The word in PS 109 is not episkopen it is pquddah. Check your lexicon. the text was written in Hebrew not Greek.
     
  18. gb93433

    gb93433
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    15,496
    Likes Received:
    6
    The word in PS 109 is not episkopen it is pquddah. Check your lexicon. the text was written in Hebrew not Greek. </font>[/QUOTE]In the NT Paul uses the words presbuteros and episkopos interchangably.
     
  19. Daniel David

    Daniel David
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Messages:
    5,316
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think his point was the the Psalm text does not use the greek language.

    Come on KJVOs. Let us hear ya on the matter.
     
  20. Daniel David

    Daniel David
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Messages:
    5,316
    Likes Received:
    0
    Still no answers huh?

    Well, this thread and the one I started about the NASB correctly translating its underlying text are very telling.
     

Share This Page

Loading...