Featured These Men Are Responsible For Our Modern Versions

Were those notes in Latin? That always seemed crazy to me, Englishmen working on an English translation, writing their notes in Latin.

 

I suspect some modern translators/translations have notes archived somewhere that they hope will sit around unnoticed for centuries!

 

Would agree with you on both points, as not having the 1 John rendering would not make a modern version apostate/corrupted, as the Trinity does not stand on that lone witness!

 

Did not all of the translators for the Nasv/Niv/Esv all hold to full inerrnacy/ispiration?

 

The translators still had some oftheir bad theology at times creep in, such as in translation baptism, correct?

 

Which on would the KJVO consider to be the pure and uncorrupted received one then?

 

I would prefer them to have used something more in line with say immersion, and that would indeed be more Baptist, eh?

 

We English are crazy, but for centuries Latin was the language that was understood amongst all the educated people in Europe. Today that language is English. Maybe we're not so crazy after all.

 

Monte Python would disagree with you about that!

 

The Church of England had kept a number of Roman Catholic doctrines and traditions. The Church of England's doctrine of the church government was very similar to the Roman Catholic doctrine of the church government except that the king of England replaced the pope as being the earthly head of the church. King James I accepted the Church of England's view of church government.

The very area where the Church of England doctrinal bias of the KJV translators is claimed to have influenced the making of the KJV concerns this doctrine where the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church both advocated hierarchical church government.

One of the reported 14 changes made by a prelate or prelates in the 1611 KJV according to Thomas Hill’s 1648 sermon involved 1 Corinthians 12:28. “Helpers, governours” was the rendering of Tyndale’s, Coverdale’s, Matthew’s, Great, Whittingham’s, Geneva, and Bishops’ Bibles at this verse. The 1557 Whittingham’s and 1560 Geneva Bible have a marginal note for helpers: “As Deacons” and a marginal note for governors: “As Elders.” The 1599 edition of the Geneva Bible and a 1672 edition of the KJV have the following marginal note for helpers or helps: “the offices of deacons” and this marginal note for governours or governments: “He setteth forth the order of elders, which were the maintainers of the churches discipline.“ Concerning this verse, Paul Baynes (1573-1617) wrote: “The helps God hath put in his Church respect the calling of deacons” (Diocesan’s Trial, p. 72). Augustus Strong referred to “helps” as “indicating the duties of deacons” (Systematic Theology, p. 917). At this verse, the 1657 English translation of the 1637 Dutch Bible has these notes: “helps [that is, who take care of and help the poor and sick] governments, [that is, they that are appointed to keep the Church in good order, and to guide them, which are the elders, Rom. 12:8, 1 Tim. 5:17].”

Benjamin Hanbury quoted the following from the preface to the reader in the Just Defence of the Petition for Reformation that was printed in 1618: “1 Corinthians 12:28 is translated, both by the Genevan and former Church translation [Bishops’] ‘helpers, governors,‘ but the new translators, herein worse than the Rhemists, translate it ‘helps in governments;‘ foisting into the text this preposition ‘in.‘ Why? They cannot abide elders to assist the minister in governing Christ’s Church. So their churchwardens are but the prelates’ promoters” (Historical Memorials, I, p. 131). In his exposition of Ezekiel, William Greenhill (1598-1671) asserted that 1 Corinthians 12:28 “is faulty in this place, reading those words thus, ‘helps in government,‘ which was done to countenance all the assistants prelates had in their government” (p. 551). In his 1648 sermon, Thomas Hill maintained that helps in governments “is a most horrible prodigious violence to the Greek words; for they are both the accusative case, helps; there are elders; governments, there are deacons; now to obscure these, you must put it, helps in governments” (Six Sermons, p. 25).

In his 1593 book advocating that prelatic or Episcopal church government is apostolic, Bishop Thomas Bilson acknowledged that some use 1 Corinthians 12:28 as one verse that they cite for Presbyterian church government. Bilson wrote: “There remained yet one place where governors are named amongst ecclesiastical officers, and that is 1 Corinthians 12” (Perpetual Government, p. 197). Bilson wrote: “Why should they not be lay elders or judges of manners? Because I find no such any where else mentioned, and here none proved. Governors there were, or rather governments” (p. 199). Bilson claimed that “Chrysostom maketh ‘helps’ and governments’ all one” (p. 212). In 1641, George Gillespie maintained that “Chrysostom, expounding this place, doth not take helps and governments to be all one, as Bilson hath boldly, but falsely averred” (Assertion of the Government of the Church of Scotland, p. 19). The 1611 edition of the KJV does exactly what Bishop Thomas Bilson suggested by connecting the words “helps” and “governments” with “in.”

David Norton pointed out: “1611, uniquely and apparently without justification from the Greek, reads ‘helps in governments” (Textual History, p. 34).

Was this change deliberately introduced in order to attempt to take away a verse that had been used by those who advocated Presbyterian church government?
Did Bilson or other prelates take advantage of their position to attempt to undermine or obscure a favorite text used to support Presbyterian church government?
What truth of the original demanded that this change be introduced into the 1611? In 1641, Scottish reformer George Gillespie wrote: “We cannot enough admire how the authors of our new English translation were bold to turn it thus, ’helps in government,’ so to make one of two, and to elude our argument” (Assertion, p. 19). Andrew Edgar suggested that Gillespie “recognized in these words a covert attack on the constitution of the Church of Scotland” (Bibles of England, p. 299, footnote 1). In 1646, Gillespie wrote: “Whereas he [Mr. Hussey] thinks, helps, governments, to belong both to one thing, there was some such thing once foisted into the English Bibles; antilepsis kubernesis was read thus, helps in governments: but afterwards, the prelates themselves were ashamed of it, and so printed according to the Greek distinctly, helps, governments” (Aaron’s Rod, p. 103).