doctrinal views of KJV translators

Discussion in '2005 Archive' started by Logos1560, Apr 9, 2005.

  1. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    In an appendix in Waite's DEFINED KJB, S. H. Tow asserted: "Without exception the translators were men of faith and sound understanding of God's Word" (p. 1669). Tow described the theology of the KJV translators as "pure and godly" (p. 1680). Ed DeVries maintained that the KJV translators "were orthodox in doctrine" (DIVINELY INSPIRED, p. 55).

    Were all the doctrinal views held by the KJV translators "orthodox," sound, and "pure?"

    Were the KJV translators perfect in their understanding of the Scriptures? Did they hold to any wrong doctrinal views?
     
  2. 4His_glory

    4His_glory
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2005
    Messages:
    2,884
    Likes Received:
    0
    The were Anglican, unless you think that Anglican theology is pure and orthodox, you wouldn't call the KJV such.

    As Anglican's the KJV translators, were baby baptizers, and disregarded the speraration of Church and State. Not to mention they embraced a liturgical form of worship, and some on this forum have produced evidence that some of the KJV translators were involved in persecution of Baptists.

    Does anybody have perfect understanding of God's Word?

    All that being said, though, it does not mean that the KJV is a bad translation. It is a good conservative translation of Scripture. Just as the NKJV, NASB, ESV are all good conservative translations of Scripture.
     
  3. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,137
    Likes Received:
    320
    Yes and no to each question.

    They have something called the 39 Articles of Relgion which developed after Henry the 8th. At first there were only a few articles. If one reads them quickly they are impressive.

    But within them lies a masterful piece of equivocation straddling the line between the Church of England and the Church of Rome.

    The Church of England has had an identity chrisis since Henry the 8th to this very day.


    HankD
     
  4. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    One reason for this thread was to examine whether or not some KJV-only claims about the KJV translators were accurate and valid.

    Another reason for this thread was to see if KJV-only advocates are willing to apply the same standards of doctrinal soundness to the KJV translators than they seem to want to demand of other translators and text editors.

    Let's pick a KJV translator who has been praised
    by KJV-only authors as an example. D. A. Waite had high praise for the accomplishments of Lancelot Andrewes and listed him as one of three "superior King James Old Testament translators" (DEFENDING THE KJB, p. 68). Gail Riplinger referred to Andrewes as "the paramount King James translator" (IN AWE OF THY WORD, p. 893). What were the theological views of this paramount KJV translator?

    What were the views of Andrewes concerning baptism and the Lord's Supper? What were his views concerning confession and absolution? What were his views concerning Mary's perpetual virginity? What were his views concerning allegorical interpretation? etc.
     
  5. FrankBetz

    FrankBetz
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    Define "conservative" please? Else I'll have to add "ultra" to my definition of conservation.
     
  6. FrankBetz

    FrankBetz
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    Here is some "evidence" of just how the KJB translators thought about their task:

    So, to try and confirm God's Word on the basis of the character of those who translated it is rather ridiculous, especially considering ALL have sinned and come short of the glory of God. that line of reason would disqualify ALL Bibles.

    May I coin a phrase? "Moot"!!
     
  7. FrankBetz

    FrankBetz
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    I would hope you'renot referring to the words "Jesus Christ" to "equivocate straddling"?

    You sahould be more specific when you specify something, or did you? Not that I can see, anyway.
     
  8. 4His_glory

    4His_glory
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2005
    Messages:
    2,884
    Likes Received:
    0
    Define "conservative" please? Else I'll have to add "ultra" to my definition of conservation. </font>[/QUOTE]They are conservative, because they all typically used a more formal approach to the translation process rather than a dynamic one. However, if you are translating biblical languages to English there are times you have to be dynamic in order for it to read properly.
     
  9. 4His_glory

    4His_glory
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2005
    Messages:
    2,884
    Likes Received:
    0
  10. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    I have a copy of a book written by Marianne Dorman entitled LANCELOT ANDREWES--A PERENNIAL PREACHER OF THE POST-REFORMATION ENGLISH CHURCH.

    Dorman wrote: "For Andrewes, the only way to become a Christian is through the sacrament of Baptism" (p. 127). In his sermon points in one of his sermons, Andrewes claimed that in the institution of baptism and the holy Eucharist, there is a power for the remission of sins" (NINETY-SIX SERMONS, pp. 82-103).

    In a sermon on John 20:23, Andrewes taught the doctrine of absolution and confession (NINETY-SIX SERMONS, pp. 82-103). The reference work THE DICTIONARY OF LITERARY BIOGRAPHY confirmed that "in 1600 Andrewes gave direct offense by preaching in defense of priestly absolution" (Vol. 172, p. 5). Dorman cited from Andrewes's Visitation Articles where Andrewes wrote: "By the minister he [referring to the parishioner] may receive the benefit of absolution, to the quiet of his conscience" (LANCELOT ANDREWES, p. 128).
     
  11. FrankBetz

    FrankBetz
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    Define "conservative" please? Else I'll have to add "ultra" to my definition of conservation. </font>[/QUOTE]They are conservative, because they all typically used a more formal approach to the translation process rather than a dynamic one. However, if you are translating biblical languages to English there are times you have to be dynamic in order for it to read properly. </font>[/QUOTE]Ok. Then why does the King James read so much more eloquently? And isn't eloquence sort of the betterment of literary excellence? If it isn't, you just smacked literary excellence in the face. That would fit in the "dumbing down" principle catagory.
     
  12. FrankBetz

    FrankBetz
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    Like I said before, if you disqualify a version by it's translators questionable doctrinal beliefs, then you disqualify all versions. But when you question the morals of some of the translators well....?
     
  13. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    KJV-only authors and posters often seek to disqualify a version because of its translators' questionable doctrinal beliefs. KJV-only author Mickey Winter wrote: "If their theology is wrong, then does it not stand to reason that perhaps some of their produced work will contain error" (KJV ON TRIAL, p. 44). Thomas Holland wrote: "If a man's doctrine is suspected of being corrupt, we must conclude that hw ill corrupt the Scriptures" (CROWNED WITH GLORY, p. 28). D. A. Waite wrote: "Once a man's theology is found to be false, his word can be false in any area whatsoever" (HERESIES OF WESTCOTT AND HORT, p. 46).

    As noted earlier, one reason for this topic
    was to see if KJV-only claims about the KJV translators were true. Another reason was to
    show the double standards of KJV-only advocates who condemn other translators for claimed incorrect doctrinal views while they ignore the
    incorrect doctrinal views accepted by the Church of England translators of the KJV. It is not being claimed that because of the documented incorrect doctrinal views of some of the KJV translators that the KJV is not an acceptable translation.
     
  14. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    You have a good point, then again, we are ALL sinners. Although this could be a whole new thread subject, what translations were actually translated by true Christians?

    If you have teams, then obviously, some will NOT be Christians. My question would be, how many on the team ARE Christians?

    My whole point here is, are we looking at a person's morals or are we looking at whether or not they are a true born-again "Christian".

    Obviously, in the preservation process of God's Word He has used both. So, I don't believe this has as much effect on whether or not a translation is "good" as is possibly being implied in this thread.

    . . . just food for thought.
     
  15. TCassidy

    TCassidy
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    12,163
    Likes Received:
    1,311
    As Dr. Tow (his doctorate is real, he is an MD) is a Presbyterian, and the KJV translators were all confessional Anglicans agreeing to the "39 Articles of Religion" it can safely be assumed that Dr. Tow's statement of faith and the Anglican statement of faith are less divergent than the Anglican and a Baptist statement.
    I don't think anyone has suggested they, or anybody else, is perfect in their understanding of the Scriptures.

    And, as a Baptist, I believe their views on baptism are wrong. As an historical chiliast I believe their views on eschatology are wrong. But that is my informed opinion and not necessarily fact.
     
  16. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    Did Lancelot Andrewes accept a form of the Catholic doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity?

    Marianne Dorman cited where Andrewes referred to "the most holy, pure, highly blessed, the Mother of God, Mary the eternal virgin" (LANCELOT ANDREWES, p. 69). [This is said to be quoted from Vol. 11 of his WORKS, p. 295]. Andrewes referred to "Mary evervirgin" (Brightman, PRIVATE DEVOTIONS OF LANCELOT ANDREWES, p. 59).
     
  17. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    Shoot, we don't even know who actually wrote many Scriptures, humanly speaking. We have no idea who wrote most of Judges, Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles. It coulda been anyone in Israel, or even the nephilim. But it's the PRODUCT that matters. The character of King James doesn't matter...he merely AUTHORIZED the AV to be made. Same with Andrewes ot the drunk Thompson...Has anyone found any mistranslations they made, skewed in favor of their theology?

    The largest outside influence on the AV was the set of 14 rules made by Archbishop Bancroft, which he had KJ approve, and affixed the king's name to them.

    OTOH, could anyone HONESTLY read the NIV and its list of translators & contributors & deduce that Virginia Mollenkott( Used part-time as a consultant for English style & NOT as a translator) is a lesbian?
     
  18. 4His_glory

    4His_glory
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2005
    Messages:
    2,884
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ok. Then why does the King James read so much more eloquently? And isn't eloquence sort of the betterment of literary excellence? If it isn't, you just smacked literary excellence in the face. That would fit in the "dumbing down" principle catagory. [/QB][/QUOTE]

    The KJV reads more eloquently IN YOUR OPINION. It is a matter of opinion. It was eloquent for its day, but our language today is just as eloquent when it uses proper grammer. 400 years from now, people will be saying "Ah that 21st century English was some much more eloquent than what we speak today!"

    English is a living language, it undergoes changes.
     
  19. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    C. P. Hill wrote that "Catholic tradition in the Church of England owes a great deal" to Lancelot Andrewes (WHO'S WHO IN HISTORY, p. 31). THE OXFORD DICTIONARY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH noted that Andrewes was "one of the principal influences in the formation of a distinctive Anglican theology" which was "Catholic in tone" (p. 61). Horton Davies observed that Anglican spirituality had a "continuing link with Catholicism in Lancelot Andrewes and his successors" (WORSHIP AND THEOLOGY IN ENGLAND, p. 428). THE DICTIONARY OF LITERARY BIOGRAPHY affirmed that Andrewes was "the spiritual and intellectual leader" of the movement that has been called Anglo-Catholicism, high churchmanship, or English Arminianism (Vol. 172, pp. 4, 6). The reference work LITERATURE CRITICISM FROM 1400 TO 1800 noted: "Around the time he took up his Pembroke mastership, Andrewes began to emerge as a leading and outspoken member of the Anglo-Catholic Arminian party" (Vol. 5, p. 17). Maurice Reedy claimed that "it was the essence of Anglicanism in his [referring to Andrewes] day that it chose to retain enough of full Roman Catholic doctrine to resemble the old Church" (BISHOP LANCELOT ANDREWES, p. 216).

    John M'Clintock wrote: "To express his theological tenets briefly he [Andrewes] was of the school which is generally called the school of Laud" (CYCLOPAEDIA of BIBLICAL, THEOLOGICAL, AND ECCLESIASTICAL LITERATURE, Vol. I, p. 223).
    Ross Williamson maintained that "partly because Andrewes in his gentleness, is a more attractive figure than his disciple and successor, the choleric, meddlesome Laud, [Archbishop William]
    Laud has been blamed for much that should more justly be laid to Andrewes's account" (FOUR STUART PORTRAITS, p. 81).
     
  20. av1611jim

    av1611jim
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2002
    Messages:
    3,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    By defending W/H for their translation yet ignoring their doctrinal views, aren't you guys doing the same thing you have said the KJVo authors have done?

    Just wondering how that works.

    I, for one, would not defend the CoE for its psuedo-catholicism. OTOH, I find it interesting you all would defend W/H in spite of their CoE affiliation. (BISHOP Wescott ring a bell?

    In light of history, I would never support CoE if for no other reason than their psuedo-cahtolicism.

    In HIS service;
    Jim
     

Share This Page

Loading...