KJO point of view

I think we have confirmed that the footnote in the ASV should not have been there. That doesn't mean all translations are invalid. And footnotes are not scripture anyway. Can we move on now?

 

Are you jumping to wrong conclusions without knowing the facts? I posted my own research in this thread. It may be posted elsewhere to answer the same incorrect but often repeated KJV-only accusations, but it is still my own research. I continue to do additional study and research and often add additional information to my previous research.

 

Don't you know....these guys are lined up with their sticks to beat this poor dead horse some more. You'd think they'd figure out by now that camp A is not going to convince Camp B to switch sides and vice versa. Maybe it's time for one of the moderators to close this thread.

 

Episcopal doctrine did influence the translating of the KJV

There is evidence that the Church of England doctrines of the KJV translators did influence their translating. Believers including Baptists in the 1600's pointed out examples of Church of England doctrine influencing the translating.

Henry Jessey, a Baptist Bible scholar and pastor in the 1600's, complained about the KJV for its episcopacy and said that Bishop Bancroft "who was supervisor of the present translation, altered it in fourteen places to make it speak the language of prelacy" (Williams, Common English Version, p. 53). Prelacy refers to a system of hierarchical church government by prelates such as archbishops and diocesan bishops set over more than one local church. At its entry for Episcopacy, the Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge defined it as “a system of church government whereby ultimate local church jurisdiction resides in the office of one person, the bishop” (p. 301). Webster’s New Twentieth Century Dictionary gave as its first definition the following: “government of the church by bishops; that form of ecclesiastical government in which diocesan bishops are established, as distinct from and superior to priests or presbyters; government of the church by three distinct orders of ministers--deacons, priests, and bishops” (p. 614). Bancroft’s Canons of 1604 had in effect asserted that “the government of the Church of England under His Majesty by archbishops, bishops, deans, archdeacons, and the rest that bear office in the same” be accepted as agreeable to the word of God.
Would Archbishop Bancroft have permitted any renderings in the translation under his supervision that conflicted with the 1604 Canons?

One place where the 1611 KJV indicates bias for Episcopal church government is in Acts 14:23 where either the KJV translators, Bancroft, or another prelate omitted the words "by election" found in Tyndale's New Testament, Coverdale's Bible, Matthew's Bible, Great Bible, Taverner's Bible, Jugge’s New Testament, Whittingham’s New Testament, Geneva Bible, and Bishops' Bible ("ordained them elders by election"). Henry Dexter noted: “So Acts 14:23 retained in the English versions, until the hand of Episcopal authority struck it out, the recognition of the action of the membership of the churches in the choice of their elders” (Hand-Book, p. 15, footnote 1). In his 1648 sermon entitled “Truth and Love,“ Thomas Hill asserted that Acts 14:23 was one of the fourteen places altered “to make them speak the language of the Church of England” (Six Sermons, p. 24). In 1733, John Currie wrote: “It was not the fault of our translators that the Version of this verse was altered, but it was done by some prelates afterward” (Full Vindication, p. 65). James Lillie maintained that “this [Acts 14:23] is a key-text on the subject of church-government” (Bishops, p. 18). In an article entitled “Did King James and his translators tamper with the truth of God as delivered by William Tyndale” in the Baptist Magazine for 1871 as edited by W. G. Lewis, the author asserted: “This all-important text [Acts 14:23] was mutilated and corrupted by James’s revisers, by leaving out the two words ’by election;’ and by changing congregation into church; thus representing the act as exclusively that of Paul and Barnabas, and as Whitgift and Bancroft said they were successors of the Apostles, they turned the text into a justification of their lordship over the congregations, besides leading the people to believe that the congregations of the Apostles were the same as the churches of the bishops” (p. 582). This article maintained “that James and his hierarchy committed a foul crime against God and man in their daring forgery on this text [Acts 14:23]” (p. 583). This article connected the change with the Church of England’s doctrine of apostolic succession.

 

Is that your admission that you do not practice what your question asserted and that you do trust a translation made by men who you know held unscriptural beliefs?

 

There was no inaccuracy. Allow me to correct yours: You in fact DID provide the bait. "Reasons" or "excuses" don't make this fact null.

- Peace

 

Are you aware of the fact that Jehovah's Witnesses make use of the KJV and even have printed editions of the KJV? Would you suggest that the Jehovah's Witnesses' use of the KJV supposedly makes the KJV wrong?


Jehovah's Witnesses have published their own editions of the KJV. In 1942, they purchased plates for an edition of the KJV with marginal references from the A. J. Holman Company, and printed over 1,858,000 of these KJV's by 1992.

Jehovah's Witnesses have misused and misinterpreted the KJV just as they have misused the Greek text behind their own biased New World Translation.

 

In a seventy page article on the problem in the Princeton Theological Review, Professor Oswald Ellis tells of being rebuffed when he asked the the publisher to remove it. He was told that:

 

You know that you and I do not, will not, never have and never will see anything eye to eye...why don't you simply stop responding to any of my posts and I will do my utmost to ignore you completely.

 

Were your ears burning or something? I was not jumping to any conclusions nor was I referring to you. There are people on this forum who go to the internet and copy/paste reams of "stuff" to support their side of any argument. Get over yourself

 

Another incorrect claim. I have not made any posts about preterist views. Evidently you are confusing me with another poster [Logos1].

 

Well apparently they have broken their contract because I don't see it in online versions of the ASV.

 

The evidence is clear that the KJV translators acknowledged King James as the head of their state church and that they held an incorrect view of church government or rule. Concerning the KJV, the Eclectic Review noted that “in some instances the summary of contents prefixed to the chapters is of the nature of a comment,“ and it cited the one at Psalm 149 as an example (Vol. I, p. 574 note). In their contents heading at Psalm 149 in the 1611 KJV, this is stated: “The prophet exhorted to praise God for his love to the Church, and for that power, which he hath given to the Church to rule the consciences of men." This 1611 heading is additional strong evidence of bias in the KJV. Was this contents heading a sectarian comment as biased as any marginal note that some complain about in the Geneva Bible? John Lewis acknowledged that “great exceptions have been taken to the contents [heading] of Psalm 149” in the KJV (Complete History, p. 330). Lewis indicated that some claim that readers of it “would be tempted to conclude, that our English clergy have as absolute power in their hands as any court of inquisition in the world” (pp. 330-331). John Lee wrote: “One of the most offensive of the arguments of the chapters in the original edition was that of Psalm 149” (Memorial for the Bible Societies, p. 230). William Richards referred to the “strange title” of the 149th Psalm, and after citing what it stated, he wrote: “Surely this is rank Popery” (Welsh Nonconformists, p. 385). After citing this contents heading, Thomas Smyth commented: “In plain English, power to correct heretics, schismatics, and dissenters, with the wholesome severities of whips, pillories, fines and imprisonments” (Works, I, p. 323 note). In a letter, Samuel Turner wrote: “Such a heading may have been agreeable to persons high in authority in the time of the first of the Stuarts, but subsequently it was found expedient to alter it” (Church Review, January, 1857, p. 557). Bishop Bilson, co-editor of the 1611, wrote: “We enforce our devices upon the church of God” (Perpetural Government, p. 533). The last six words of this heading was omitted in the 1762 Cambridge edition of the KJV. In 1769, Blayney changed the remaining last two words of this heading from “the church” to “his saints.” Some later KJV editions in the 1800’s, especially Oxford editions, still had the same contents heading as the 1611 edition. The heading for this same psalm in the 1560 Geneva Bible was as follows: “An exhortation to the Church to praise the Lord for his victory and conquest that he giveth his saints against man’s power.”

 

Oops, even the SBC's own HCSB committee must have been infiltrated by these devious Episcoplotters (no "by election" at Acts 14:23!!!!!). Who knew?

 

Wycliffe's bible
Ephesians 3:9 which is the dispensacioun of sacrament hid fro worldis in God, that made alle thingis of nouyt;

Again, this is not an MV. It was a translation done in the 1300's.

If MV's are trying to remove the deity of Christ, then by the same logic, so was John Wycliffe. But the RC hated him and years after he was buried, they dug up his bones and burned them as a heretic. He was one of the greats that we can thank for our English bibles.

 

Amy, the ASV copyright has lapsed and it is now in the public domain.
Are the "online versions" abridged (without any notes) or is just this one missing?