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!

Last Martyr to be Burned Under King James!

Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by Rhetorician, Apr 11, 2018.

  1. Rhetorician

    Rhetorician Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2005
    Messages:
    2,208
    Likes Received:
    68
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Hello all who love the King James Version of the Bible:

    "The last execution for 'heresy' in England took place by the burning alive at Litchtfield of a dissenter who was guilty of the wicked doctrines of 'Ebion, Cerinthus, Valentinus, Arius, Macedonius, Simon Magus, of Manes, Photinus, and the Anabaptists, and other such arch-heretics.' The martyr in the flames was Edward Wightman, the date was April 11, 1612, and the English King upon the throned was none other than King James I, just a year after his Authorized Version of the Scriptures became public!"

    Taken from This Day in Baptist History, Bob Jones Publishers

    I thought you might like to read this today.

    sdg!

    rd

    PS This is cross referenced in the Church History forum.
     
  2. TCassidy

    TCassidy Late-Administator Emeritus
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    20,082
    Likes Received:
    3,487
    Faith:
    Baptist
    What is your point? We know that James I had nothing to do with the Authorized Version of 1611 other than approving the translation of a new version (even though it wasn't an actual translation but rather a revision of the former "Authorized Version" the Bishops Bible) and providing a list of rules to be followed in the translation process.

    And, of course, after the translation was completed in 1610 James I never actually got around to "authorizing" it as the Bishops and Great Bibles had been previously authorized.

    And, of course, none of the above detracts in any significant way from the overall worth of the venerable old KJV which, aside from its sometimes archaic language, and the questionable quality of the TR the NT is based on, is still a pretty good version. :)

    So, I am not sure I understand the attempt to link the Bible version to the martyrdom in question.
     
  3. Rhetorician

    Rhetorician Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2005
    Messages:
    2,208
    Likes Received:
    68
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Dear Brother,

    No point necessarily, I just thought that it could be a good historical issue that maybe some would not have known or heard.

    It is always interesting for me to see in history how God's strikes a straight blow with crooked sticks like all of us are in our sinfulness.

    That's all, nothing more or nothing less.

    sdg!

    rd
     
  4. Martin Marprelate

    Martin Marprelate Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2010
    Messages:
    6,821
    Likes Received:
    1,716
    Faith:
    Baptist
  5. TCassidy

    TCassidy Late-Administator Emeritus
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    20,082
    Likes Received:
    3,487
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Okay. I am happy to discover that I am not the only one who enjoys collecting arcane (and probably useless) tidbits of information. :)
     
  6. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    5,141
    Likes Received:
    220
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Some KJV-only advocates emphasize a claim that suggests that King James had very little to do with the KJV. Bob Steward claimed that "he [King James] personally had no part in its being translated" (Close Look at the NKJV, p. 22). Dick Cimino contended that "King James did not attempt to superintend the work in any way" (The Book, p. 99). D. A. Waite claimed: "Now King James had nothing to do with the translation itself other than making the rules" (Defending the KJB, p. 85).

    In his book printed in 1730, Anthony Johnson noted that “the King recommended the following rules to be by them most carefully observed” (Historical Account, p. 93). Likewise, John Lewis affirmed that “his Majesty recommended the following rules to them to be very carefully observed” (Complete History, p. 317). P. W. Raidabaugh noted that Bancroft that sent a copy of the rules along with a letter from the king to Cambridge for the persons selected as translators (History, p. 55). The evidence that King James made or approved the rules for the translating would demonstrate a great deal of influence on the making of the KJV.

    Furthermore, King James followed up on the rules by having Archbishop Richard Bancroft oversee the translation. Donald Brake noted: “The translation of the KJV was conducted according to controlling rules and principles established by Archbishop Bancroft” (Visual History of the KJB, p. 115). Brake added: “His fifteen rules for translation clearly reveal bias against the Puritans and inevitably led to a translation that favored the Church of England” (p. 116). Alister McGrath observed that Bancroft “was in a position to exercise considerable influence over the new Bible, by laying down rules of translation that would ensure that it would be sympathetic to the position and sensitivities of the established Church of England” (In the Beginning, p. 164). McGrath wrote: “The translators were instructed to follow strict ‘rules of translation,‘ drawn up by Bancroft and approved by James” (p. 173). David Teems referred to Bancroft as “the man James charged with organizing, policing, and managing the enterprise of translation” (Majestie, p. 163). In their preface, the KJV translators referred to Bancroft as the "chief overseer and task-master under his Majesty, to whom were not only we, but also our whole Church, much bound." In the preface of his 1659 book, Robert Gell, who had been chaplain of George Abbot, asserted that those who set the translators to their work “limited them, (as some of them have much complained)” (An Essay, p. ix). James MacKnight referred to “the restraint they [the KJV translators] were laid under by those who employed them” (New Literal Translation, p. 9). Henry Craik also maintained that the KJV translators were “limited” by “the regulations of their royal patron” (Hints, p. 27). William Orme claimed: “The translators were embarrassed by the rules of their royal master—rules which were dictated by his prejudices, and his partiality for episcopacy, as much as by his learning” (Bibliotheca Biblica, p. 38).

    There may be other possible ways that King James could have influenced the making of the KJV. If I recall correctly, the King's professor of Hebrew and the King's professor of Greek, who would be indebted to the king for their positions and who would likely be expected to be loyal to the king, may have been appointed chairmen of committees of the translators. Westminster, one of the places where groups of the translators met, was said to be under the direct authority of the king.
     
  7. robycop3

    robycop3 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    13,147
    Likes Received:
    524
    Faith:
    Baptist
    KJ was the titular head of the Anglican Church, as have been all the monarchs of Britain beginning with Henry VIII.

    And we know Bancroft was KJ's toadie.

    And I read somewhere long ago that KJ read the final draft of the AV before it was published.
     
Loading...