1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Riplinger's perfect Bible before 1611

Discussion in '2005 Archive' started by Logos1560, Dec 20, 2004.

Top Posters
  1. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    6,219
    Likes Received:
    406
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Gail Riplinger wrote: "The previous Bishops' Bible (c1568-1611) was no less perfect, pure, and true than the KJV" (IN AWE OF THY WORD, p. 17).

    She wrote: "In the main, the Bishops' Bible is the same as all previous English Bibles" (p. 567). She proposed that "the Bishops' Bible is the textual twin of the KJV" (p. 164). She stated: "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).

    Do KJV-only posters here agree with Riplinger's claim that the Bishops' Bible was
    as perfect, pure, and true as the KJV?
     
    #1 Logos1560, Dec 20, 2004
  2. robycop3

    robycop3 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    14,362
    Likes Received:
    668
    Faith:
    Baptist
    If the Bishop's Bible was perfect, why did the AV men dare to make so much as one little change in it?
     
    #2 robycop3, Dec 20, 2004
  3. Phillip

    Phillip <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    Robycop3, that was my exact question. Why do you need to "perfect" perfection?

    I think this is the reason most of the KJVo posters will NOT touch this question on this board.
     
    #3 Phillip, Dec 20, 2004
  4. Slambo

    Slambo New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2003
    Messages:
    197
    Likes Received:
    0
    That's the same thing I've been asking about the KJV and W&H.
     
    #4 Slambo, Dec 20, 2004
  5. robycop3

    robycop3 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    14,362
    Likes Received:
    668
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Sorry, Slambo, ya gotta go back a little further in time than the 1880s. Ya gotta build the FOUNDATION before the walls.
     
    #5 robycop3, Dec 20, 2004
  6. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    6,219
    Likes Received:
    406
    Faith:
    Baptist
    KJV-only author William Bradley wrote: "The Bishops' Bible is a faithful translation from the true Bible text" (PURIFIED SEVEN TIMES, p. 93).

    Douglas Stauffer claimed that "the changes in the Bishops Bible were mostly cosmetic, including many pictures, and thicker, more expensive paper"
    (ONE BOOK STANDS ALONE, pp. 283-284).

    Do KJV-only authors examine the evidence before they make their claims?

    Is the Bishops' Bible on the KJV-only view's line of good Bibles as faithful in its translation at every verse as later English translations from the same underlying texts such as the NKJV, MKJV, or KJ21 that are left on this
    same line by KJV-only advocates?
     
    #6 Logos1560, Dec 21, 2004
  7. robycop3

    robycop3 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    14,362
    Likes Received:
    668
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Rick, has Bradley ever explained why GOD'S word ever needed purifying? or, can't he understand the version he defends? Is the punctuation too difficult for him?
     
    #7 robycop3, Dec 22, 2004
  8. Keith M

    Keith M New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,024
    Likes Received:
    0
    The KJV was originally created because King James did not like the marginal notes found in the Geneva Bible rather than because the Bishops' Bible was a "bad" translation.
     
    #8 Keith M, Dec 23, 2004
  9. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    6,219
    Likes Received:
    406
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Since the KJV was officially a revision of the Bishops' Bible, it should be no surprise that the KJV kept some of its renderings.

    The Bishops' Bible is the likely source of the 1611 editions renderings "God" at Genesis 6:5, 2 Samuel 12:22, 2 Chronicles 28:11, and Isaiah 49:13. Later editors changed the first two of these to "GOD" and the last two of these to "the LORD."

    Concerning the Bishops' Bible, Butterworth noted: "Among its peculiaries is the frequent use of 'God' where other versions have 'the Lord'" (LITERARY LINEAGE, p. 180). For example, the Bishops' Bible has "God" at some verses [Ps. 18:1, 23:1, 25:1, 30:1, 35:1, etc.] where the KJV has "LORD."
     
    #9 Logos1560, Dec 24, 2004
  10. robycop3

    robycop3 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    14,362
    Likes Received:
    668
    Faith:
    Baptist
    That was actually a rhetorical question, Keith, but thanx for your reply.

    I read somewhere awhile back that the translator "committee" for the AV was formed shortly before the death of QE1, & that the start of its work was put on hiatus until KJ could sit firmly upon the throne and tend to matters of immeduate importance, and only then did Archbishop Bancroft & friends approach him about making a new BV. Can anyone affirm or deny this?(Not that it's really important anyway!)
     
    #10 robycop3, Jan 3, 2005
  11. rsr

    rsr <b> 7,000 posts club</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    11,852
    Likes Received:
    1,085
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Not according to Frederic Kenyon, who dates its beginnings to the Hampton Court Conference in 1604.

    "It was in 1604 that the scheme of the revision was drawn up, and some of the revisers may have begun work upon it privately at this time; but it was not until 1607 that the task was formally taken in hand."

    Frederic Kenyon, "Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts," Chapter 11, Section 9.

    There were other earlier attempts at a new translation, as Kenyon points out:

    "It was at once attacked by Dr. Hugh Broughton, a Biblical scholar of great eminence and erudition, who had been omitted from the list of revisers on account of his violent and impracticable disposition. Broughton had, so far back as 1593, tried hard to secure Burghley's (Elizaneth's chief minister) support for a translation to be produced by himself, which, as he declared, sundry bishops, doctors, 'and other inferior of all sort' were pressing him to undertake; but Burghley does not seem to have been responsive, and Archbishop Whitgift actively opposed it, so much so that Broughton threatened to bestow his favours upon the Scots, who, he asserts, were ready to pay him far more liberally than the English. But even this hope had come to nothing."
     
    #11 rsr, Jan 3, 2005
  12. robycop3

    robycop3 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    14,362
    Likes Received:
    668
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Thanx, RSR. I trust Kenyon's opinion over many others. He was an archaeologist who combined Scripture with science and history.
     
    #12 robycop3, Jan 3, 2005
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Loading...