Featured KJV3

Got it, I see how it works now, it just turns into a new thread. Thanks,

 

Some people are overwhelmed by having to read too many pages before having the opportunity to participate. A new thread allows people to only be responsible for the content in that new thread.

I've been gone a bit. I am more likely to read and post in short thread, than a long one.

 

The original plan for the making of the KJV allowed for a review by bishops and for a review by the Privy Council.

Some sources suggest that the review committee was made up of six of the translators and six others who were not translators, perhaps six bishops. Other sources suggest that all twelve were translators. The names of all twelve who reviewed the translating and made some revisions are not known.

After the review committee and their revisions, KJV Miles Smith and Bishop Thomas Bilson have been identified as being co-editors of the 1611 KJV. Bishop Thomas Bilson is not on the lists of the translators so he is one bishop who reviewed the translation and could have made some changes to it. Bishop Bilson was also a member of the Privy Council as was also Archbishop Richard Bancroft, chief overseer of the translating work.

One of the KJV translators reported that bishops made some changes to the work of the translators.

In “a series of memoranda concerning the translators, set down about 1640,“ Charles Butterworth noted that the following was stated: "Dr. Bret [Richard Brett, a KJV translator] reported that the Bps [bishops] altered very many places that the translators had agreed upon" (Literary Lineage of the KJB, p. 213). Laurence Vance wrote: “A manuscript about the translators in the Lambeth Palace Library, apparently written about 1650, records that Richard Brett (1567-1637), a translator of the Oxford Old Testament company, reported that ‘the Bps. altered very many places that the translators had agreed upon: He had a note of the places’” (King James, His Bible, p. 52). KJV-only author Gail Riplinger also wrote: “The Bps. [Bishops] altered very many places that the translators agreed upon,” noted Dr. Brett of the Old Testament Oxford Committee” (Hidden History, p. 32). Opfell also confirmed that Brett "complained that the bishops had altered many places on which the members of the company had agreed" (KJB Translators, p. 62). Opfell maintained that “a man with whom [Miles] Smith often conferred was Richard Brett” (Ibid.). Brett and Smith had been part of the same Oxford group of O. T. translators. These statements said to be from Richard Brett seem to distinguish between those considered translators which included some bishops and those considered only bishops but not translators.

 

They wwere charged though to have thr new translation to meet the approval of King James, as he disliked how the Geneva in places and in their study notes seemed to go away from the King as a divine ruler! They also had to make sure to keep Anglican theology proper, as in how to translate Bishops and Baptism!

 

Yes, but they were to make sure met his approval still!

 

King James made sujre that they did not have those pesky Calvinist study notes that the Geneva bible had!

 

The 1611 is the one that they all would point to though as being 'the King James", even though many of them actually use the 1769!

 

I do not think some of the KJVO even realize that they are not using the 1611!

 

They may assume and claim that they have the 1769, but they don't. Very few if any KJV-only authors have seen and examined an actual edition of the KJV printed in 1769. Changes and revisions were made after 1769 in post-1900 KJV editions. There were some new errors introduced in the 1769 with at least one of them remaining in most Oxford and Cambridge editions over 100 years.

 

The loudest people do not know the most. The loudest people don't speak for the masses. Outsiders seldom truly understand insiders. People that were insiders until they "saw the light" are not the most accurate reporters of what goes on inside.

People never discuss the issues that motivate me and many others to continue to use the KJV. Copyright and access issues within the church are not popular topics.

Debate is not fun for me. I don't like to repeat myself. I don't like to set myself up to be thrust into a debate. Having to defend myself triggers my PTSD. My distaste for repeating myself is probably "learned helplessness".

Volume and repetitiveness seem to be an effective way to gain something, though, at least for some people.

Part of my recovery process was learning the following mantra:

I have the right to be "wrong" and do it anyway. I have the right not to explain myself and do it anyway. I have the right to change my mind and do the new thing anyway.

So, it does not matter if I am wrong or not. I just live my life unhampered by many of the limits that bind people doing things the "right" way. It is simpler. I like simple.