MUST we have only one text?

Any modern critics who undertake to correct the TR think they have better information and understanding that the original translators of the KJV.

It is the very fact that KJV translators had differing views of doctrine that made them an ideal body to do the work. Those guys had to somehow agree on what the best wording was in spite of their varying doctrinal opinions, which had the good effect of keeping wrong opinions out of the translation. No combined body would have ever agreed to take the deity of Christ out of passages like some of them would have desired to do, for example, because the rest of the body would not have gone for it. Modern itty-bitty critical bunches who all agree to readings which remove the deity of Christ, or limit the number of references to the blood, or other 'favorite' issues of critics, end up giving us translations which are tainted by those opinions. It is ironic that supporters of these corrupt translations don't see a problem criticizing the KJV because they recognize wrong doctrinal opinions of some of its translators. I mean, does anybody care that two of the translators of the NIV were professing homosexuals? Its that not an indication of some problem of doctrinal beliefs on their part?

 

What serious differing views of doctrine was held among the KJV translators? All of the KJV translators belonged to the Church of England and had to accept official Church of England doctrinal views. Did the KJV translators actually have religious freedom to state openly any disagreements with official Episcopal church doctrine?

A few of the KJV translators had belonged to the Puritan party in the Church of England that had wanted to purify it of some Roman Catholic practices and teachings that still remained in the Church of England, but those few Puritans had in effect been silenced and forced to accept official Church of England views as stated in the 1604 canons enforced by Archbishop Richard Bancroft. Would Archbishop Bancroft have permitted any renderings in the translation under his supervision that conflicted with the 1604 Canons?

Scott noted that Bancroft had drawn up new canons (church laws) for the Church of England which "added over forty special rules against Puritan dissenters" (James I, p. 283). Hunt noted that King James I had approved canons in 1604 that "required subscription to the entire Book of Common Prayer and the endorsement of all Thirty-nine Articles" (Puritan Moment, p. 108). Lee wrote: "The canons of 1604 demanded that every benefice-holder subscribe to a statement that the Prayer Book and the Thirty-nine Articles were entirely agreeable to the word of God" (Great Britain's Solomon, p. 172). Fisher observed that Bancroft “procured from Convocation, with the King’s approval, the passage of a series of canons which forbade, under penalty of excommunication, the least deviation from the Prayer Book, or any disparagement of the established system of government and worship in the Church” (History, p. 398). These 1604 canons did not receive the approval or sanction of Parliament. Gardiner pointed out that after the 1604 canons “conformity--thorough and unhesitating conformity--was to the unbending rule of the English Church” (History, IV, p. 148). Does that not indicate that the Church of England translators of the KJV accepted the teachings of the Book of Common Prayer?
White asserted that “forty-nine of the leading ministers he [Bancroft] summarily deprived, and struck such terror into the rest that they complied” (Lives, p. 381). Robert Dale maintained that three hundred of the clergy “were silenced or deprived of their livings” (History, p. 187). Alexander Leighton (1568-1649) claimed that “400 ministers were silenced, suspended, or thrust out by virtue of these wicked canons” (Sion’s Plea, p. 75). Leighton described those wicked canons as “the Popish after-birth of Bishop Bancroft” (Ibid.). Henry Clark noted: “Orders were sent across the country that all the clergy must formally accept the established order of things, from the Royal Supremacy down to the latest item in the Canons of 1604: every precaution was taken to prevent anything in the nature of procrastination or evasion” (History, I, p. 248).

 

I haven't done indepth study of history of the church at that time, but have little doubt that the Lord somehow preserved His word in the translation process of the KJV.

 

Translations which have put any value on Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, or other corrupt manuscripts. Modern critics and I disagree on the value of these manuscripts. I am persuaded that Burgon's critique of these manuscripts is accurate and unassailable.

 

Are you admitting that you were uninformed about the actual history of that time and were merely speculating or assuming in your earlier statement that you incorrectly presented as factual?


God was just as much involved in the translation process for the 1560 Geneva Bible as in the translation process for the KJV. God was also just as much involved in the translation process for the NKJV.

The Scriptures do not teach that God supposedly showed partiality or respect of persons to one exclusive group of translators only in 1611 and only concerning English.

 

Logos: Where is the documented evidence for your assertion that modern textual critics think that they know it all?

Marke: Any modern critics who undertake to correct the TR think they have better information and understanding that the original translators of the KJV.

That doesn't equal thinking they know it all.

 

It is amazing to see some of the wrong conclusions to which some KJV-only advocates seem to jump. Some KJV-only advocates seem to have to distort and misrepresent the views of those who do not accept the modern KJV-only view. Disagreeing with the KJV-only view is not an attack on the word of God as some KJV-only advocates incorrectly claim. Disagreeing with the man-made KJV-only view that is not stated in the Scriptures does not create doubt. To infer that those who disagree with the KJV-only view do not have faith in God and His word is wrong.

I believe God and the Scriptures. I believe all that the Scriptures state about themselves. I believe in the inspiration of the Scriptures given to the prophets and apostles. I believe that God was just as faithful to preserve the Scriptures before 1611 as afterwards. A consistent and scriptural view of Bible preservation would be true both before and after 1611. The Scriptures indicate that preservation concerned the exact words given to the prophets and apostles by inspiration of God, and those exact words were in the original languages. My view of Bible translation is actually the same view held by the early English translators such as William Tyndale, Miles Coverdale, John Rogers, the translators of the Geneva Bible, and even the translators of the KJV. Would it be suggested that the KJV translators created doubt in the word of God and did not have faith because they maintained the same view of Bible translations that I consider to be in agreement which what the Scriptures actually teach?

The proper standard and authority for the making and trying of translations is the preserved Scriptures in the original languages.

 

Since I'm new here, a little background, first, if the readers of this post don't mind.

Saved as a teenager, drifted away from the church for many years. More than I care to admit. Frankly, I believe the Lord got tired of seeing a "lukewarm" Christian and sent a messenger. Twice, in fact. Perhaps, it was a last chance situation for me. Eventually, I'll know the answer to that. In any event, accepted the invitation to come to the messenger's church one Sunday morning. To make a long story shorter, I'm no longer the person I was that Sunday morning, approximately 18 months ago.

When I dusted off my long neglected Bible I found I couldn't read it, anymore. Print was way too small. Friend suggested that my larger print Bible should be an NIV. Bought one and tried to read/use it for several months. Frankly, it left me cold. Don't know how to describe it fully. It was like reading some of my required college textbooks.

In conjunction, became convicted to read the Bible through from cover to cover for the first time in my life. Used an on-line program that offered a multitude of Bible version choices along with a progress tracking system. FWIW, read the Bible in 3 months. More on this in a minute.

Went back to Lifeway to get another Bible. Which one? There appeared to be a sea of Bibles there. I "knew" I didn't want an NIV. Kept pulling different ones off the shelves and read passages from them. Round an round the rows and rows of Bibles. The more I looked and read, the stronger my conviction became to take home the KJV.

Yes, I believe the Holy Spirit guided me in chosing the KJV, just as He did with the online study. Just as He has led me to study over the last year or so why there were so many DIFFERENT Bibles at Lifeway that day. Beginning this journey, all I knew was that I needed a larger print Bible and I wanted to try to make up for so many years of lost time in studying God's Word.

Have read many viewpoints, discussions, and even fights among professing Christians over the KJVO controversy. I'm not a scholar. I'm not even as knowledgeable about the contents of the Bible, as I should be. Still have a long ways to go with that regard. Perhaps, because a lot of time has been spent really digging into both sides of the issues surrounding King James, Hort & Westcott, thee & thou, and a host of other argue-about-it points.

One thing that really stands out to me now, is that how few times the Holy Spirit is mentioned within the debates on this subject. Not only with God's promises to preserve His Word, but with the Holy Spirit leading folks to their conclusions, regardless of where they stand on the issue.

For example, person A calls person B a liar because B wrote that version xyz was in agreement with the JW Bible. Is person A letting the Holy Spirit lead him or her? Makes me wonder, since I've read verse by verse comparisons that B was indeed correct. Verse after verse of xyz was exactly or nearly so the same as the JW and in disagreement with the KJV. If the Holy Spirit is leading B, then who's leading A?

Before I continue.... The KJV is my preferred version. Since this journey began have acquired several other versions in addition to the NIV. Plus, other hard copy ones in our church library and have utilized a number of others available on line -- before and after KJV. Also believe a person can be saved without anything printed at all. My father never learned to read. Yet, I know I'll be with him again one day in heaven. A verse printed on a business card, a hymn sung in church, a beautiful sunset displaying the wonder of God's creation, a kind word from a friend, and more can lead the lost to Christ. An invitation to Sunday services can turn around a person's life.

Doesn't the Holy Spirit have a role in this?

Thank you, each one, for allowing me to say my piece. Whether you agree or disagree, that's OK. Each one of us has to follow what's in our own hearts. Blessing to each of you.

 

Well said and welcome!

 

Really? I've seen some very "Christ-like" JW's.

 

Which is NOT surprising, as their 'god" satan goes about as an Angel of light!

 

Exactly..I've seen some pretty Christlike INDIVIDUALS who are Mormon or JW. I' guess I'm not understanding your comment.
If you're saying that a person can be a growing, mature Christian reading whatever GOOD Bible translation they choose, then I agree.

 

I'll give that an AMEN!!

 

:applause:

 

Correct, if so, they can't be equally inspired the Word of God.

 

I see "repeated" discussion here since I joined here on BB. I learned that the evidence on 12 verses of Mark 16 was there in ancient manuscripts, but 2 famous corrupted MSS deleted them.