Anglican Version

Please substantiate this whopper.

 

I grew up in the high church and came to know Jesus as my personal Saviour during Confirmation classes. Many "high church" Anglican Churches preached the gospel and upheld the veritable Word of God. It was the "lower church" that first deviated from the gospel and bibical verity, or liberal theology.

Indeed, we genuflected in the aisle and crossed ourselves. This did nothing for our salvation. It was a sign of respect for the house of God.

Infant baptism was the act of removing "original sin" and not eternal redemption. Else, why would the Prayer Book require those who backed the infants be required to raise those infants in the life required by scriptures and bring them to a saving knowledge of the Saviour? (I am not saying I agree with this thinking, but just to correct what was understood by infant baptism.) Remember, there are a lot of baptists that incorporate a mystical salvation for children who die before the mythical age of understanding. Careful at pointing fingers at Anglicans!

As a sidenote, we owe a lot of gratitude to many Church of England ministers for the early writings of gospel and theological truths. Anyone who has done any serious study will appreciate this truth.

Wife and I attend an Anglican Church where we live because of travel restrictions and the proximity of this church. The word of God is preached and the people are told about redemption requirements.

Cheers,

Jim

 

There is a difference between precise and accurate.

 

The KJV was the primary bible used by those of us who fought against liberalism in the early years and we were mostly baptists!

Our theology was sound, we preached the word, and we won souls to the Lord, using the King James Version.

I still use my 1945 Cambridge King James Version.........I am not a KJVonlyist!

Cheers,

Jim

 

Amen !!! It has stood the test.

 

Bob, Where do you get your "best" Greek from???? I question a lot of the so-called Greek knowledge.

And, please get of your anti-English garbage. I don't go about knocking Americans every chance I get.

The monarchy is the Head of the Church of England. The Archbishop is selected by the Queen and the Prime Minister, and that is the structure of the national church. The same applies in some other countries. Whether you like it or not, that is it. Learn to live with it, and history.

You seem to ignore the fact that we defended evangelical Christianity using the King James Version. This is the English Bible we had as our sword as did many theologians, far more learned than you or me. The Likes of Hodge, Strong and many others who wrote great texts on theology.

The Koine Greek was a living language at the time, and I doubt very much if you can translate it accurately in its own context, any more than you could figure out the 17 different dialects of English in England.

I happen to think we do very well with the King James Versions we use, along with other translations, history, context and the customs of the peoples.

Bob, please don't read this as a personal attack on you. I would hope you know me better than that. I do, however, see a one-sided attack on England and thusly reflected on the version of scripture many of us have used for a good many years.

Cheers,

Jim

 

An example of the comparison between accurate and precise might be all of the clocks in town all show the same time and all be inaccurate. All the clocks were precise but inaccurate.

 

When was the last timer someone baptized their clothes or watched a ship be baptized.

 

In Greece where the word "baptize" is also used for laundry.

Cheers,

Jim

 

I think Dr.Bob's premise hinged on this clause: yet accept their greatly flawed and biased translation as somehow "perfect" or "best"?? The use of the KJV is not the problem he is addressing; rather it is the elevation of the KJV to the position of "perfect" or "best".

No translation will be perfect as it is not in the original language. Bob has given his reasons why the KJV can't be regarded as "best" as well.

 

Personally I use the New King James version now. So, I agree partially with Dr Bob and because you specifically asked concerning the King James, my specific answer in terms of a version, then IMO the New King James should be used by Baptists.

You will probably note that for the most part I use the KJV on the BB.
If a KJVO person sees anything else than the KJV he/she will often just pass over it without reading it.

However, Baptists have my permission to use any version they please

The KJV is "flawed" as is any translation (as well as the NKJV).

If it is "greatly" flawed a lot of that is due to the passage of time and the Jacobean-Elizabethan English of the KJV having gone out of use and replaced by 21st century "Standard English".

To be honest, to me, the Christmas story just wouldn't be the Christmas story if not told in the language of the KJV. But that is called nostalgia.

Yes, the bias of the anglo-catholic church comes through in the AV but usually is subtle enough that only the eye of the scholar detects it.

Don't forget that when it first appeared in 1611 it had many of the grave clothes of it parent, the Church of Rome (the Apocrypha, the calendar of saints days, a schedule which include readings from the Apocrypha, cross references in the margin to the Apocrypha, etc).

Also, lets all remind ourselves that each of us is also "biased" and "flawed".

So personally, I dont want to pit my bias and flaws against Dr Bob's or anyone elses here on the BB.

Let Dr Bob be Dr Bob. We all love him. No?


HankD

 

I could but won't answer each of these objections (poorly or not therefore remains to be seen) with documentation, but much study (or re-study) is a weariness to the flesh.

Plus, as a final apologetic, my response was more of a defense of Dr Bob himself than what he said (because I also am - as are we all - biased and flawed). But IMO, there is truth however in at least some of his analysis of the KJV.

OK, so I am willing to accept your rebutals and cede some points ( I won't say which ones ) to move on to something more productive.

BTW, I do accept the Comma as apostolic (after much research and contemplation)

HankD

 

I accept the Period.:laugh:

What convinced you that the Comma was in the original?

 

It was more on the side of contemplation than the early evidence which was only Latin and some late Greek mss.

The Comma fits in the context.
It is included in some old itala mss (sometimes flip-flopped with verse 8).
The early Latin Fathers attested to it.
It is easy to see how it could have been missed by a scribe losing his place.

It's probably happened very early on in the reproducing of the Grk mss (or so I surmise).

In the 4th century Trinitarian debates (recorded in Latin) the verse was never questioned as authentic but only its meaning.

It was attested to by a certain 4th century father as being extant in the Greek copies he had seen. I'll try to find this but I have a database of about 20,000 lines of text of early church fathers. But, I'll give it a try again.

HankD

 

So far I have found some writings of Augustine in which he talks about the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit saying (but not citing Greek Scripture as such) "and these three are one".

Also similar situations with early Greek fathers "and these three are one" without specifically saying that they are quoting Scripture.

HankD