Featured Side-stepping other motivations for KJV

Perhaps you are the one who is side-stepping or avoiding the fact that there was other motivations actually involved as reasons for the making of the KJV.

Nicholas Perrin maintained that King James I wanted a new Bible “for certain political and ecclesiastical reasons” (Lost in Transmission, pp. 171-172). Tim Fellure claimed: “The king authorized the new translation for one reason only: he felt threatened by the popular version of the day” (Neither Jot nor Tittle, p. 170).

Alister McGrath observed: "The ultimate grounds for James's hostility toward the Geneva Bible was the challenge its marginal notes posed to his passionate belief in the doctrine of the 'divine right of kings'" (In the Beginning, p. 141). Bernard Levinson and Joshua Berman suggested that the marginal notes in the Geneva Bible “contained some interpretations that were sympathetic to the right of the oppressed to resist a tyrant, and that raised questions about ‘the divine right of kings’” (KJB at 400, p. 4). Vishal Mangalwadi noted that King James I “upheld the doctrine of the divine right of kings, which the Geneva Bible challenged” (Book That Made Your World, p. 155). Jon Pahl asserted that “James wanted a Bible free of the antimonarchical glosses of the Geneva Bible of 1560” (Burke, KJV at 400, p. 416).

In his introduction to the facsimile edition of the 1599 Geneva Bible, Michael Brown pointed out: "King James did not encourage a translation of the Bible in order to enlighten the common people: his sole intent was to deny them the marginal notes of the Geneva Bible" (p. i). Gustavus Paine also noted: "James's real reason for objecting to the Geneva Bible was rooted in his need to feel secure on his throne. Some of the marginal notes in the Geneva version had wording which disturbed him: they seemed to scoff at kings. If the Bible threatened him, it must be changed. Away with all marginal notes!" (Men Behind the KJV, p. 10). Laurence Vance maintained that “it was not the text of the Geneva Bible that bothered the king--it was the notes” (King James, His Bible, p. 21). In the introduction to a 1853 edition of the Bible by Benjamin Boothroyd, this is noted: “What chiefly offended James and the high church party in this version [the Geneva Bible] were the notes, which indicated a strong but just sense of freedom” (p. xxi).

Pastor John Mincy affirmed: "King James saw in this new translation an opportunity to get rid of the influence of the Puritan Bible, the Geneva" (Williams, From the Mind of God, p. 131). Ward Allen maintained that King James "hoped to supplant the popularity of the Geneva Bible, the Puritan translation whose accuracy and readability made it a vast favorite with the people" (Coming of King James Gospels, p. 3). Vishal Mangalwadi claimed: “King James authorized a fresh translation of the Bible to undermine the republican implications of the Geneva Bible” (Book That Made Your World, p. 156). KJV-only advocate Robert Sargent acknowledged that King James "despised the Geneva Bible" (English Bible, p. 206). In his Dictionary of the Bible, John Brown (1722-1787) maintained that “King James heartily hated the Geneva translation” (p. 97). Charles Buck also asserted that “King James bore it [the Geneva] an inveterate hatred, on account of the notes” (Theological Dictionary, p. 58). Kenneth Bradstreet confirmed that James “hated the Geneva Bible” (KJV in History, p. 87). Stephen Miller and Robert Huber affirmed that King James “hated the Geneva Bible” (The Bible, p. 178). KJV defender Steven Houck also observed that James "greatly disliked the marginal notes of the Geneva Bible because he thought they encouraged disobedience to kings and therefore wanted a new translation to replace it" (KJV of the Bible, p. 3). Ronald Cammenga asserted that “the king objected to certain notes that he interpreted to deny the divine right of kings, notes that justified disobedience to the king under certain circumstances” (Protestant Reformed Theological Journal, Nov., 2011, p. 56). The Local Preachers’ Magazine maintained that “King James disliked the notes of the Geneva Bible, because they were unfriendly to the despotic policy on which he acted after ascending the throne of England” (March, 1853, p. 112). Alister McGrath wrote: "The king, according to the Geneva Bible, was accountable for his actions. It was not a view that James I cared for" (In the Beginning, p. 147). Laurence Vance maintained that the Geneva Bible’s “notes—especially those against prelacy—made it unacceptable for official use in England” (Making of the KJB, p. 13).

 

Are you suggesting that your own questions and unproven contentions concerning present-day English Bibles were foolish since you try to claim that applying your own assertions or reasoning also consistently and justly to the KJV is supposedly foolish?

It would be the use of unscriptural, unjust measures/standards [double standards] which are an abomination to the LORD that would be foolish.

A so-called "contention" that advocates the use of consistent, just measures/standards is scriptural, not foolish nor unprofitable.

 

Your inconsistent question was given a proper answer.

It can be straight-up, sound, and proper to answer a question with a question, to encourage another poster to apply their own measures/standards consistently and justly, and to seek to determine whether a question is valid or invalid.

Since you refuse to apply the premises or assumptions behind your question consistently and justly, perhaps they were unproven or unsound, which would make your question invalid.

Perhaps one thing being accomplished by multiple English Bible translation efforts is that it would affirm that there is freedom of religion or Christian liberty, freedom of the press, and no state church with control over printing. There is no Star chamber and Church of England Court of High Commission to make it a high commission crime to print, bind, buy, or sell a good English Bible such as the Geneva Bible, as there was in the 1630's.

 

There are historical facts from the 1600's that provide information about some of the actual motivations involved in the making of the KJV.

King James and his state church used their great powers to undermine the Geneva Bible. Alister McGrath maintained that the secret agenda of James I was “to destroy, discredit, or displace it” [the Geneva Bible] (In the Beginning, p. 129). David Norton suggested: “The Church and the State were not so much for the KJB, or even for a uniform Bible, as they were against the Geneva Bible” (History, p. 93).

After 1616, the Geneva Bible could not be printed in England for a good number of years. Alister McGrath wrote: “As a result of pressure from the authorities, after 1616 the printing of the Geneva Bible ceased in England” (In the Beginning, p. 280). David Cloud claimed: “In 1616 the king [James I] issued a command that only the King James Bible was to be printed in England” (Faith, p. 584). Donald L. Brake wrote: “It should be noted that in England the Geneva was not permitted to be printed after 1616” (Visual History of the English Bible, p. 155). Brake asserted: “James banned the printing of the Geneva Bible in England after 1616” (Visual History of the KJB, p. 172). Adam Nicolson maintained that “”in 1616, the king put a halt to it, or at least attempted to: no more editions of the Geneva Bible were to be printed” (God’s Secretaries, p. 228). Larry Stone asserted: “In 1616 the printing of the Geneva Bible was forbidden in England” (Story of the Bible, pp. 76-77). Geddes MacGregor wrote that the last quarto edition of the Geneva Bible printed in England was in 1615 and the last folio in 1616 (Literary History, p. 145). MacGregor wrote: "After the Geneva Bible ceased to be printed in England, about 150,000 copies of it were imported from Holland for English household use" (p. 146). Alister McGrath observed that “official opposition to the Geneva Bible could not prevent it from becoming the most widely read Bible of the Elizabethan, and subsequently the Jacobean, era” (In the Beginning, p. 127).

David Norton indicated that William Laud played a “role in securing the dominance of the KJB” (History, p. 104). John Lee noted: “The total suppression of the Geneva Bible was not attempted for several years; and when it was at last effected, it was ascribed in a great measure to the rising influence of Laud” (Memorial, p. 92). Bradstreet maintained that “the popularity of the Geneva Bible so disturbed King Charles and Archbishop Laud that they did everything they could think of to discredit and get rid of it” (KJV in History, p. 103). John Southerden Burn pointed out that in 1632 a man named Blayreve was “imprisoned for having taken in his house many new Bibles of the Geneva print, with the notes” (High Commission, p. 45). Conant noted: "So pertinaciously, indeed, did the people cling to it [the Geneva Bible], and so injurious was its influence to the interests of Episcopacy and of the 'authorized version,' that in the reign of Charles I, Archbishop Laud made the vending, binding, or importation of it a high-commission crime" (English Bible, p. 367).

Edmunds and Bell affirmed that “Laud made it a high commission crime to import, print, or sell the Geneva [Bible]“ (Discussion, p. 116). Anderson pointed out that “one of the first books most strictly prohibited to be printed, imported, or sold by this Archbishop was the English Geneva Bible” (Annals, II, p. 390). Norton pointed out that Laud gave “the Geneva Bible’s commercial success as one of his reasons for its suppression” (History, p. 91). Anderson quoted Laud as saying that the “Bibles, both with and without notes, from Amsterdam” . . . “were better print, better bound, better paper, and for all the charges of bringing, sold better cheap” (Annals, II, p. 390). Laud’s decree to prohibit the importing of the Geneva Bible was around 1637. Bradstreet noted that Laud’s “propaganda campaign suggested that it was near treason to purchase a Bible printed in a foreign land when Bibles printed in England could be had” (KJV in History, p. 103). From 1637, some foreign publishers were said to print Geneva Bibles with a false date of 1599 perhaps to try to keep those who obtained them from getting in trouble with Archbishop Laud and the High Commission Court. Jack Lewis maintained that Archbishop Laud even ordered copies of the Geneva Bible burned (English Bible, p. 32). Bobrick asserted that Laud "even inserted Catholic prints of the life of the Virgin into Scottish editions of the King James Version of the New Testament and burned every copy of the Geneva Bible he could find" (Wide as the Waters, p. 278). David Katz maintained that these pictures printed in this KJV N. T. edition “were purloined from a small devotional book put out by the Jesuits at Antwerp in 1622” (God’s Last Words, p. 46). Daniell also confirmed that in 1646 William Prynne wrote that “he [Laud] would suffer no English Bibles to be printed or sold with marginal notes [i. e. the Geneva version] to instruct the people, all such must be seized and burnt . . . but himself gives special approbation for the venting of Bibles [KJV’s] with Popish pictures taken out of the very Mass book, to seduce the people to Popery and idolatry” (Bible in English, p. 458). Peter Ruckman referred to “a Catholic king (Charles I)” and to “the Papist Charles I” (History of the N. T. Church, II, pp. 5, 32) although Charles I was still a member of the Church of England.

David Daniell confirmed that the Geneva Bible "was suppressed in the seventeenth century" (Tyndale's N. T., p. xii). John Nordstrom maintained that “the Genevan Bible was forced out of circulation in 1644 by the throne to give the Anglican-approved King James Bible an open field to flourish” (Stained with Blood, p. 123). Derek Wilson wrote: “It took the determined efforts of crown and mitre to kill off the Geneva Bible” (People’s Bible, p. 121). Wilson asserted: “The supremacy of the King James Version could ultimately only be ensured by state censorship” (Ibid.). David Norton indicated that “in fair competition” with the Geneva, the KJV “would probably have lost, but its supporters had foul means at their disposal” (History, p. 91). Norton observed: “Strangulation of the Geneva Bible in the press was the most diplomatic and effective long-term policy for the establishment of the KJB in England, Scotland and the American colonies that could have been hit on” (p. 94).

 

There may have been some unsound or incorrect doctrinal issues behind King James' rejection of the Geneva Bible.

King James I thought that the Geneva Bible questioned or challenged his divine-right-of-kings "doctrinal" view which included considering the king to be the earthly head of the church.

The 1560 Geneva Bible did not provide as much support for some Church of England doctrines such as Episcopal church government and apostolic succession as the 1611 KJV would. Some renderings in the Geneva Bible and other pre-1611 English Bibles which were understood to teach congregational church government or to support Presbyterian church government were altered or revised to renderings more favorable to Church of England episcopal church government views in the 1611 KJV.

Perhaps one motivation for the making of the KJV was to provide support for the Church of England. The dedication to King James in the 1611 edition of the KJV noted that its translators "have great hope that the Church of England shall reap good fruit thereby."

 

KJV-only author Tim Fellure asserted: “James believed in one thing: the supremacy of the throne. His throne! He believed that the king, as the final authority should never be questioned or disobeyed” (Neither Jot nor Tittle, p. 169).

Horton Davies asserted that after the 1604 Hampton Court Conference that “James maintained the connexion between the divine right of kings and the apostolical succession” (Worship and Theology in England, II, p. 330). William Page claimed that “first came the divine right of kings and next the divine rights of Bishops, and both were insisted upon to crush the divine rights of the common people” (Apostolic Succession Examined, p. 9).

 

John N. King asserted that King James I used Psalm 105:15 “as a proof text for the divine right of kings in his personal motto, ‘Touch not mine Anointed’” (Fischlin, Royal Subjects, p. 424). Alister McGrath noted: “One of the biblical texts seized upon by the supporters of the ‘divine right of kings’ was Psalm 105:15,“ which they argued meant “the people are forbidden to take any form of violent action against God’s anointed one--in other words, the king” (Christianity’s Dangerous Idea, p. 135).

Allison Jack suggested that in the KJV “Psalm 105:15 could indeed stand as a justification of the divine right of kings, which the Geneva Bible had rejected” (Bible and Literature, p. 3). For its rendering “anointed” in its text in the 1560 edition, the Geneva Bible’s marginal note stated: “Those whom I have sanctified to be my people.” Alister McGrath pointed out that “the Geneva Bible interpreted this verse in a rather different way: kings are forbidden to oppress or take any violent action against God’s anointed people” (Christianity’s, pp. 135-136). McGrath again affirmed that “the Genevan notes argued that the term ’anointed’ was to be understood to refer to God’s people as a whole” (In the Beginning, p. 147). McGrath asserted: “According to the Geneva Bible the text was actually, if anything, a criticism of kings, in that their right to harm the people of God was being absolutely denied” (p. 148).

 

Are you saying that you don't care what you yourself say about the KJV?

I did not ask you to abandon the KJV as what it actually is. You incorrectly allege that you are being asked to do something that you were not asked to do. I do not despise the KJV as you seem to assume.

I accept all that the Scriptures state and teach concerning themselves. I have read the KJV over 50 years. I love, accept, and defend the KJV as what it actually is. I advocate presenting the truth about English Bible translations. I soundly and scripturally advocate the use of consistent, just measures/standards concerning English Bible translations including the KJV.

A consistent, sound, scriptural view of Bible translations would be true both before and after 1611. The KJV is the word of God translated into English in the same sense (univocally) as the pre-1611 English Bibles such as the Geneva Bible are and in the same sense (univocally) as post-1611 English Bibles such as the NKJV are.

I have merely disagreed and objected when you make claims for the KJV that you do not prove to be true and when you make allegations against other English Bibles that you do not prove to be true. It was actually demonstrated that some of your assertions are simply not true. You dodge and side-step discussion when your unproven assertions and claims are soundly answered by use of consistent, just measures/standards.

 

Bible-believing Baptists in the 1600's pointed out examples of Church of England bias in the 1611 KJV.

If there had been doctrinally-sound Baptists on the translating team, some examples of likely differences could be seen in the 1842 revision of the KJV by Baptists.

 

Many people may not apply to themselves the incorrect or unjust opinions that they may think of others.

It may be because some people are proud and refuse to see the truth that would demonstrate that their modern, human, non-scriptural KJV-only opinions are wrong. Only a very few KJV-only advocates have made their unproven allegations against me. I have had friends who were KJV-only, including some pastors,, and they did not think that I despised the KJV.

Readers of the KJV who accept it as what it actually is as I do would not think that I supposedly despise the KJV. Your opinion is not correct. I defend the KJV and present the truth concerning the KJV. I love the KJV as a Bible translation. My view of Bible translations is scripturally-based and is in agreement with the view of its makers. I advocate what the KJV states and teaches concerning the Scriptures.

At times KJV-only advocates seem to despise learning the truth about KJV editions and their making.

KJV-only use of unscriptural, unjust measures and use of fallacies would contradict what the KJV states and teaches.

 

Does this verse actually describe KJV-only advocates who choose not to come to the knowledge of the truth that would refute their human, inconsistent, non-scriptural KJV-only reasoning?

You have not pointed out any actual scriptural truths that I do not accept.

You do not even present any scriptural truths that back up your following the opinions of men [your own opinions and those of other KJV-only advocates].

 

Use of the "have" is actual present perfect tense. I also still have friends who are KJV-only.

A consistent, just application of your incorrect allegation would allege that the KJV translators were severe critics of the KJV.

 

I do not at all deny God's promises of preservation. I accept what the Scriptures actually teach concerning preservation while KJV-only advocates in effect deny what the Scriptures teach concerning it. KJV-only advocates present no consistent, sound view of Bible preservation that is true both before and after 1611.

I hold in my hands an authoritative word of God. The KJV has the same proper derived authority as the pre-1611 English Bibles that the KJV translators themselves identified as being the word of God and as being an exact translation. The scriptural truth is that errors introduced by men in KJV editions would not be authoritative, and the fact that a number of actual errors in KJV editions have been corrected would confirm the truth of my point. The scriptural truth is that words added by men are not authoritative as words of God according to what God revealed in His word. I can also hold in my hands copies of actual reprints of original-language texts of Scriptures from which it is asserted that the KJV is translated.

Are you arguing that the sources from which the KJV was made are not an authoritative word of God?

Since a consistent application of your incorrect assertion would undermine or destroy the actual foundations for the KJV, what can the righteous do in light of your erroneous reasoning?

The pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV is a revision are English foundations of the KJV, and KJV-only advocates suggest that they were not an authoritative word of God from which correct translated words of God could be kept.

Psalm 11:3
If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?