What were the Rules and Presuppositions for the AV1611?

1. The ordinary Bible, read in the church, commonly called the Bishop’s Bible, to be followed, and as little altered as the original will permit.

2. The names of the prophets and the holy writers, with the other names in the text, to be retained, as near as may be, according as they are vulgarly used.

3. The old ecclesiastical words to be kept; as the word church, not to be translated congregation, &c.

4. When any word hath divers significations, that to be kept which has been most commonly used by the most eminent fathers, being agreeable to the propriety of the place, and the analogy of the faith.

5. The division of the chapters to be altered, either not at all, or as little as may be, if necessity so require.

6. No marginal notes at all to be affixed, but only for the explanation of the Hebrew or Greek words, which cannot, without some circumlocution, so briefly and fitly be expressed in the text.

7. Such quotations of places to be marginally set down, as shall serve for the fit references of one scripture to another.

8. Every particular man of each company to take the same chapter of chapters; and having translated or amended them severally by himself, where he thinks good, all to meet together, to confer what they have done, and agree for their part what shall stand.

9. As any one company hath dispatched any one book in this manner, they shall send it to the rest to be considered of seriously and judiciously: for his Majesty is very careful in this point.

10. If any company, upon the review of the book so sent, shall doubt or differ upon any places, and therewithal to send their reasons; to which if they consent not, the difference to be compounded at the general meeting, which is to be the chief persons of each company, at the end of the work.

11. When any place of special obscurity is doubted of, letters to be directly by authority to send to any learned in the land for his judgment in such a place.

12. Letters to be sent from every bishop to the rest of the clergy, admonishing them of this translation in hand, and to move and charge as many as being skillful in the tongues, have taken pains in that kind, to send their particular observations to the company, either at Westminster, Cambridge, or Oxford, according as it was directed before the king’s letter to the archbishop.

13. The directors in each company to be deans of Westminster and Chester, and the king’s professors in Hebrew and Greek in the two universities.

14. These translations to be used when they agree better with the text than the Bishop’s Bible, viz. Tyndale’s, Coverdale’s, Matthew’s, Wilchurch’s, (the Great Bible) Geneva.

 

Oh, by the way, they were, by and large, honest men, and to slander them by suggesting they did not produce an honest translation is a cheap shot and a low blow. I can't help but think such pejorative language was used to stir up strife rather than to engage in honest discourse on the subject, and that is a dirty shame.

 

I read somewhere that Archbishop Bancroft actually wrote the rules, but that he wisely conformed them to the known views of the king, and that he took them to the king for approval. Can anyone elaborate on this?

 

Come on Dr. Bob! You are too smart and savvy not to know that the English language is defined by usage and context. Unlike the French, the English-speaking world does not have its language set by an academy. The Elizabethan English of the KJV has helped shape and define our culture and thought patterns in America. Therefore, time, usage, and theological wrangling have rectified the points you raised regarding the KJV. The original Anglican bias has evaporated with time and usage. The KJV is very cogent and understandable in the traditional Christian framework but it is anathema to a postmodern mind.

Like Latin, the language of the KJV is unchanging. Therefore, it is ideal for a standard, common translation. Translated four hundred years ago, it is immune to the confusion of modern translations warped by the contemporary theological morass. Its beauty is unsurpassed, its familiarity is universal, and it offers an accepted standard for memorization. Furthermore, the KJV language is highly denotative which is certainly not true of our modern American brand of English.

In sum, your points are no longer relevant today and they are overwhelmed and negated by the advantages of the Elizabethan English.

The objection that people cannot understand it is nonsense. It only takes a little thought and effort. The problem is not the KJV but lazy Christians who will not diligently search the Scriptures. There is an unequaled body of literature and helps for the KJV. Furthermore, the modern dumbed-down, frivolous paraphrases and trendy translations lose theological content, meaning, and accuracy. The many modern versions make for a pluralistic view of Scripture. As Ian Paisley says, “Stick with the old tried and true Sword.”

Thanks for your time.

 

Yes, I did remember read 1611 A.V. Bible in the Introduction why does this Bible was translated. The introcution mostly talk about dedicate to Roman church and King James.


Yes, I saw they decide not put 'assembly' from Greek 'eklesia' into 1611 A.V., so, they decided to put word, 'church'. Yes, I saw it in the introduction of 1611 A.V.

My friend told me, he went to Ireland with his group for missionary field trip three or four years ago. He met Roman Catholic priest at the church. He showed KJV Bible to Catholic priest, the priest said to him, "This is Catholic Bible", priest knows sign language. My friend was shocked.

Yes, 1611 A.V. were translated by Anglicans, not protestants.

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 - Amen!

 

Is that because we have assimilated those beliefs into our own, do you think? Many KJVO's insist that the KJV's message hasn't changed since 1611, so I'm wondering how the evidence of bias has evaporated in the text.

 

I am not sure the bias has evaporated, but I am equally unsure that it is as Dr. Bob has (mis)stated.

Let's look (in separate posts due to length) at the two "worst case" scenarios of supposed "bias" in the word choices of the KJV translation committees: "church" and "baptize."

From a short monograph written by my pastor:

So, it seems the choice of the word "church" was not all that bad after all. In fact, I would wager that every person on this thread attends a "church." In fact, the very word "church" has been around for a long time, the first known usage in English being in 696 AD.

If it was wrong to use the word "church" in 1611, over 900 years after becoming a common English word, surely it is equally wrong to use the word "church" today, and I am sure all of your are going rush off to your "assembly" or your "congregation" and call a business meeting to change the name of your society to "First Baptist Assembly." And, of course, all you denominational types are going to attend the next national meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention and demand that all Southern Baptist "Churches" now and forever after be known as "Southern Baptist Assemblies."

In other words, isn't this the most silly argument you have ever heard?

 

Good answers to Dr. Bob's questions, skanwmatos.

Thank you!

 

Repeat after me: "Double standards of the KJVO's:kjbo's"

 

But you are NOT a Baptist by your own assertion! If the word should have been translated differently in order to be "honest" then you, in order to be honest, cannot be a "Baptist!" You, to be consistent, must now call yourself an "Immersionist" or you are guilty of the same dishonesty you so readily accuse others of.

Just as I am trying to drive home the point of your hypocrisy! You can't have it both ways! If the KJV translators produced a "dishonest" translation by using words such as "Baptize" and "church" then you are just as dishonest for using those words to describe yourself.

 

Repeat after me: "Hypocrisy is wrong on both sides of this issue." To say that "Baptist" is "dishonest translation" but still call yourself a "Baptist" is a classic example of the "double standard." To say that "church" is "dishonest translation" but still belong to a "church" is another classic example of the "double standard." That knife cuts both ways. And, in my opinion, Dr. Bob is the worst offender. The KJVOs, for the most part, are simply ignorant, be he knows better and continues anyway.

 

Originally posted by skanwmatos:"But you are NOT a Baptist by your own assertion! If the word should have been translated differently in order to be "honest" then you, in order to be honest, cannot be a "Baptist!" You, to be consistent, must now call yourself an "Immersionist" or you are guilty of the same dishonesty you so readily accuse others of."
Interesting point. Maybe we oughtta start calling this board the "Immersionist Board" I may have asked you Skan before, but what did the word, "Baptist" mean in 1611? or how did the Anglicans understand the term (in 1611?) Did they understand it in 1611 the same way we Baptists, I mean Immersionists understand it in 2004? (Just an honest question, don't go all Precepts on me, Okay? )

 

To Baptists it meant the same as it does now. To Catholics, Anglicans, and other Protestants it meant something entirely different.

 

Is that because we have assimilated those beliefs into our own, do you think? Many KJVO's insist that the KJV's message hasn't changed since 1611, so I'm wondering how the evidence of bias has evaporated in the text. </font>[/QUOTE]No, quite the contrary, the usage and definition by good Baptist theology and literalistic Bible interpretation has eradicated the bias. There is illumination by the Holy Spirit, you know. Our traditional culture, especially in the South, has been molded by Biblical belief. Whereas much of modern thinking and moral standards have devolved, Bible-believers do have a greater appreciation and understanding of clear Scriptural truths, eschatology for example, than in previous generations. This concept is Scriptural in that the prophets prophesized of things than they did not understand or see fulfilled.

 

Okay, Dr. Bob, let’s extend the application of your line of reasoning. If a translation, such as the KJV, is to be branded by its translators, then does it not follow that the Greek text versions should be identified with their liberal compilers? Hence, we have conservative Bible-believers accepting and using the work of liberal and many times unbelieving scholars. What about the liberal bias and presuppositions in textual criticism? What’s the difference? You have an inconsistency. Now, which way do you want it? If you are looking for a modern Greek text version done by conservative believers, then you are limited to the Majority Text which is essentially a received text version as opposed to a “scientifically restored” text.

I am very interested in your reply. Thanks for your time and consideration.

 

My thesis in this thread has been that the KJV through time, usage, and pervasive influence in culture has properly defined its own word usage. It has achieved a place of pre-eminence through time, scholarship, and contextualization. Therefore, the KJV holds a position that modern translations cannot touch. It would take them (i.e. any modern translation) another four hundred years at least, if they can last that long, to achieve the contextualization (aaaaaaah, a good modern intellectual-sounding hard-to-define buzz word) of the KJV. Now refute this statement if you can pin it down!