KJV translators weren't KJV only!
- Thread starter ResidentAlien
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
This information is not true of course. It was not started by SDA. Orthodox Creed of 1678 by the General Baptist considered the English Translation of their time of which no doubt the KJV to its truthfulness and Authority that would give us 2 1/2 Ce passed. The Tenessee Association of Baptists in 1802 had the KJV as their Final rule of faith and practice. Barren River Association of Baptists, in their Articles of Faith, adopted in 1830, considered “the Old and New Testaments, as translated by the authority of King James, to be the words of God. The Bethlehem Anti-Mission Baptist Association in their Abstract of Principles in 1838 declared “the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, as translated by King James, to be the Word of God.”. Reformed Presbyterian Dewitt Talmage as printed in the New York Times on June 06, 1881, believes the KJV and takes no other versions as a substitute for KJV and many more. The point is it does not begin as you are saying.
Umm, this might be a product of good reasoning but not good for research studies and 1930 is still wrong.
William Washington Simkins, The English Version of the New Testament, Compared with King James' Translation, 1882 says:
“I unhesitatingly say, that the same Holy Ghost who gave inspiration to the Apostles to write out the New Testament, presided over and inspired those men in the translation and bringing out of the entire Bible in the English language. And I also say, that no version since, brought out in the English language, has the Divine sanction...Now, why would God cause at this age and in these trying times, versions in the same language to be brought out, to conflict...?...He would not...I FURTHERMORE SAY, THAT THE KING JAMES' TRANSLATION OF THE BIBLE IS THE ONLY DIVINELY INSPIRED...”
1890: The Supreme Court said, “…the practice of reading THE KING JAMES VERSION OF THE BIBLE, COMMONLY AND ONLY RECEIVED AS INSPIRED AND TRUE by the Protestant religious sects…” (Decision of the Supreme Court of the State of Wisconsin Relating to the Reading of the Bible in Public Schools, 1890).
1897: "A hundred years ago the Authorized Version, which had been in our fathers hands for nearly two hundred years, was no longer a version. It had come to have all the significance of an original book. Outside the pulpit and the university no one dreamed that it was translated from another language...When our fathers, and they did, stoutly maintained the doctrine of verbal inspiration, the inspired words they really had in mind were not Hebrew or Greek, but English words; the words of that version which Selden called the best translation in the world, and of which the late Master of Balliol once remarked...IN A CERTAIN SENSE, THE AUTHORIZED VERSION IS MORE INSPIRED THAN THE ORIGINAL...(Minutes of the Annual Meeting, General Association of the Congregational Churches of Massachusetts, 1897.)
It also Jowett, a Presbyterian divine says of the KJV as " IN A CERTAIN SENSE, THE AUTHORIZED VERSION IS MORE INSPIRED THAN THE ORIGINAL" which is to be found in his Life and Letters of Benjamin Jowett
https://archive.org/details/a544604101abbouoft/page/n433/mode/2up
Commenting on the KJV Bible in 1922 William L. Phelps, Professor of English Literature at Yale, wrote, “The Elizabethan period—a term loosely applied to the years between 1558 and 1642—is properly regarded as the most important era in English literature.... the crowning achievement of those spacious times was the Authorised Translation of the Bible, which appeared in 1611.... the art of English composition reached its climax in the pages of the [KJV] Bible. WE ANGLO-SAXONS HAVE A BETTER BIBLE THAN THE FRENCH OR THE GERMANS OR THE ITALIANS OR THE SPANISH; OUR ENGLISH TRANSLATION IS EVEN BETTER THAN THE ORIGINAL HEBREW AND GREEK. THERE IS ONLY ONE WAY TO EXPLAIN THIS; THE AUTHORIZED VERSION WAS INSPIRED." (Human Nature in The Bible, William Lyon Phelps, 1922, pp. 10, 11)
The Report on The History and Recent Collation of The English Version of The Bible presented by the Committee on Versions to the Board of Managers of the American Bible Society and adopted in 1851 stated that when the King James Bible was completed in 1611 it “immediately became the standard English Bible, and superseded all the other versions.... it had the effect at once to develope and fix the structure and character of the English language; and with that language it has since been borne abroad even to the ends of the earth.... At the present day, the English [language] is probably the vernacular tongue of more millions than any other one language under heaven; and the English [KJV] Bible has brought and still brings home the knowledge of God's revealed truth to myriads more of minds, than ever received it through the original tongues.”
https://books.google.com.ph/books?i...ce=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false
William Washington Simkins, The English Version of the New Testament, Compared with King James' Translation, 1882 says:
“I unhesitatingly say, that the same Holy Ghost who gave inspiration to the Apostles to write out the New Testament, presided over and inspired those men in the translation and bringing out of the entire Bible in the English language. And I also say, that no version since, brought out in the English language, has the Divine sanction...Now, why would God cause at this age and in these trying times, versions in the same language to be brought out, to conflict...?...He would not...I FURTHERMORE SAY, THAT THE KING JAMES' TRANSLATION OF THE BIBLE IS THE ONLY DIVINELY INSPIRED...”
1890: The Supreme Court said, “…the practice of reading THE KING JAMES VERSION OF THE BIBLE, COMMONLY AND ONLY RECEIVED AS INSPIRED AND TRUE by the Protestant religious sects…” (Decision of the Supreme Court of the State of Wisconsin Relating to the Reading of the Bible in Public Schools, 1890).
1897: "A hundred years ago the Authorized Version, which had been in our fathers hands for nearly two hundred years, was no longer a version. It had come to have all the significance of an original book. Outside the pulpit and the university no one dreamed that it was translated from another language...When our fathers, and they did, stoutly maintained the doctrine of verbal inspiration, the inspired words they really had in mind were not Hebrew or Greek, but English words; the words of that version which Selden called the best translation in the world, and of which the late Master of Balliol once remarked...IN A CERTAIN SENSE, THE AUTHORIZED VERSION IS MORE INSPIRED THAN THE ORIGINAL...(Minutes of the Annual Meeting, General Association of the Congregational Churches of Massachusetts, 1897.)
It also Jowett, a Presbyterian divine says of the KJV as " IN A CERTAIN SENSE, THE AUTHORIZED VERSION IS MORE INSPIRED THAN THE ORIGINAL" which is to be found in his Life and Letters of Benjamin Jowett
https://archive.org/details/a544604101abbouoft/page/n433/mode/2up
Commenting on the KJV Bible in 1922 William L. Phelps, Professor of English Literature at Yale, wrote, “The Elizabethan period—a term loosely applied to the years between 1558 and 1642—is properly regarded as the most important era in English literature.... the crowning achievement of those spacious times was the Authorised Translation of the Bible, which appeared in 1611.... the art of English composition reached its climax in the pages of the [KJV] Bible. WE ANGLO-SAXONS HAVE A BETTER BIBLE THAN THE FRENCH OR THE GERMANS OR THE ITALIANS OR THE SPANISH; OUR ENGLISH TRANSLATION IS EVEN BETTER THAN THE ORIGINAL HEBREW AND GREEK. THERE IS ONLY ONE WAY TO EXPLAIN THIS; THE AUTHORIZED VERSION WAS INSPIRED." (Human Nature in The Bible, William Lyon Phelps, 1922, pp. 10, 11)
The Report on The History and Recent Collation of The English Version of The Bible presented by the Committee on Versions to the Board of Managers of the American Bible Society and adopted in 1851 stated that when the King James Bible was completed in 1611 it “immediately became the standard English Bible, and superseded all the other versions.... it had the effect at once to develope and fix the structure and character of the English language; and with that language it has since been borne abroad even to the ends of the earth.... At the present day, the English [language] is probably the vernacular tongue of more millions than any other one language under heaven; and the English [KJV] Bible has brought and still brings home the knowledge of God's revealed truth to myriads more of minds, than ever received it through the original tongues.”
https://books.google.com.ph/books?i...ce=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false
My studies and the reports I've discovered were more towards the Didache being iffy.
But, when you read the lives of the Apostles in the New Testament and compare to the Didache claiming they were Fasting all the time, claims they were Baptizing Matthew 28:19 [and there IS NOT a single recorded account of any Apostle using that formula], they were Baptizing by SPRINKLING [and each time in Acts they dunked them COMPLETELY under water], they were in Communion all the time [bread/wine/Remembrance of Me]...< which NONE of that can be found from the Book of Acts and into the personal writings of Peter and especially Paul.
I've never read anything about the Sinaiticus being a Fake by any Reliable Source before..
The meaning of the word is the same but the chapter is not addressing Peter's eternal destiny at all.
You are trying to force-fit something into the text that is not there.
I can condemn someone's politics without condemning them to hell.
Certainly not. Unless you have been sold a lie that you have a licence to sin.
You are trying to force-fit something into the text that is not there.
I can condemn someone's politics without condemning them to hell.
Certainly not. Unless you have been sold a lie that you have a licence to sin.
It was not Peter's politics that "stood condemned". It was Peter (if the ESV is accurate).
Hearing Jesu' words and believing on Him who sent Him will most assuredly lead to holy living, if faith is genuine.
But if Peter stood condemned, then he came into condemnation; contrary to Jesus' promise in John 5:24.
Hearing Jesu' words and believing on Him who sent Him will most assuredly lead to holy living, if faith is genuine.
But if Peter stood condemned, then he came into condemnation; contrary to Jesus' promise in John 5:24.
I didn't say Peter's politics were condemned. I was just using a simple example.
Anyone can disaprove of or condemn anyone's thing, words or deeds without the context being eternal helfire.
The passage is not about Peter being sentenced to eternal punishment. Not in the KJV or any other translation.
If you want to read it that way you are entitled to.
I'm getting bored with this now. Let's just drop it.
Sinaiticus (Aleph) is not a "fake" but a seriously corrupted manuscript (along with Vaticanus or B). And if you want "reliable sources" read and study the books written by Burgon and Scrivener -- the leading textual scholars of the 19th century, who personally examined and collated Greek manuscripts. Below are Burgon's comments, and Scrivener did not disagree.
"What we are just now insisting upon is only the depraved text of codices Aleph A B C D – especially of Aleph B D. And because this is a matter which lies at the root of the whole controversy, and because we cannot afford that there shall exist in our reader’s mind the slightest doubt on this part of the subject... We venture to assure him, without a particle of hesitation, that Aleph B D are three of the most scandalously corrupt copies extant; exhibit the most shamefully mutilated texts which are anywhere to be met with; have become by whatever process (for their history is wholly unknown), the depositories of the largest amount of fabricated readings, ancient blunders, and intentional perversions of the Truth, which are discoverable in any known copies of the Word of God" (Burgon, The Revision Revised, pp. 15-16).
"What we are just now insisting upon is only the depraved text of codices Aleph A B C D – especially of Aleph B D. And because this is a matter which lies at the root of the whole controversy, and because we cannot afford that there shall exist in our reader’s mind the slightest doubt on this part of the subject... We venture to assure him, without a particle of hesitation, that Aleph B D are three of the most scandalously corrupt copies extant; exhibit the most shamefully mutilated texts which are anywhere to be met with; have become by whatever process (for their history is wholly unknown), the depositories of the largest amount of fabricated readings, ancient blunders, and intentional perversions of the Truth, which are discoverable in any known copies of the Word of God" (Burgon, The Revision Revised, pp. 15-16).
In the ESV, Peter was the one who "stood condemned", that is all I'm saying.
Condemned means condemned....so I will read it that way.
But the point of the scriptures in question is that the ESV gives an impression that is not given by the kjv...and that that impression affects doctrine.
So, there are differences between Bibles as concerning doctrine.
I agree with you, however, that the context does not bear out that the ESV's rendering is accurate to what the author intended.
So, if you are bored with the subject and want to drop it, then drop it. It means that I will have the last word.
Condemned means condemned....so I will read it that way.
But the point of the scriptures in question is that the ESV gives an impression that is not given by the kjv...and that that impression affects doctrine.
So, there are differences between Bibles as concerning doctrine.
I agree with you, however, that the context does not bear out that the ESV's rendering is accurate to what the author intended.
So, if you are bored with the subject and want to drop it, then drop it. It means that I will have the last word.