[MC1171611]

Originally Posted by Brother Tim

MC, I do not often reprint large sections of adjacent posts (unnecessary repetitiveness) but yours bears not only repetition, but storage in my "important declarations" file. You nailed the whole lid with one slam of the hammer! [I took the liberty of emphasizing one portion, lest any overlook it.]

Thank you brother...that means a lot to me. For some reason I must be in a more spiritual condition today than I usually am (it came from singing some awesome songs at work, I think) and that guy's post kinda' riled me a little.

God is GOOD!

[bibleprotector]

However, the KJV was NEVER authorized to be read in the church.

Its authorisation is in several forms:
a. that it was designed to supersede the authorised Bibles, particularly the Bishops’, the Great and Coverdale’s;
b. that it was sanctioned and produced by Royal Authority;
c. that it was made and promoted by bishops; and
d. that it was supposed to be ratified and authorised by the King, Privy Council and house of Lords. The lack of documentation of this actually occurring can be explained because the records from 1611 were destroyed in the Fire of Whitehall.

For the sake of being accurate

The dates of versions being given vary depending on which edition is being referred to. Dating may be of the first printing, or of the creation of the whole (where the OT is after the NT), or of the year of the definitive edition of it (not usual practice).

Having said that, I start a count of seven versions from Tyndale 1525, and count the Matthew Bible in 1537, though it in part is Tyndale’s 1534 revised edition as edited by John Rogers.

It must be remembered that one of the demands by the king was that they were to use the Bishops' Bible and only change it where the original language text demanded it.

“These translations to be used, when they agree better with the text than the Bishops’ Bible: Tyndale’s, Matthew’s, Coverdale’s, Whitchurch’s [Great], Geneva.”

the KJV was completed for the Church of England and was to support their doctrines and their doctrines only.

This is untrue. The Scripture was translated honestly, and the translators were independent. There is some variation in the doctrine of the translators. The point is that truth is self-evident. The Bible was not “interpreted” through Anglican glasses in translation.

the popular Geneva Bible which supported doctrines not accepted by the Church of England

Plenty of Anglicans, including leaders, were using the Geneva. The Geneva was being printed for several years after 1611 by the King’s Printers. The issue was the side notes and small errors which existed in the Geneva.

To argue that the KJB was made by almost a conspiracy to “counter” the Geneva Version is unreasonable. Especially since the Geneva was used as a basis for the KJB, and was still used by Anglican leaders after 1611.

Most people are not aware of that fact. Most people use the KJV because that is the Bible their pastor uses.

To then ascribe an anti-intellectualism to today’s Christian because they grew up in a KJB tradition is an empty argument.

In fact, it took the KJV up till 1640s to finally be accepted over the Geneva Bible.

Actually, the KJB had really taken over long before then. It was not until the 1650s until the Geneva Version was fully superseded in the minds of a minority of Puritans.

The King made it illegal to printed any Bible other than the KJV.

Please provide the evidence for this. I know the Archbishop put forth prohibitations. I can provide quotes which show that it was the Puritan Parliament which outlawed the printing of Bibles except by authorised printers, and then it was the Puritans who continued the monopoly of KJB printing in the 1650s.

Since I am not of the Church of England, thus believing as they do, I find it difficult to use the KJV as a study Bible.

Not only a false belief of the KJB being an “Anglican Version” rather than a Protestant one, but also making truth relative. That is like saying, “I will only read a Bible made by my denomination ... because they have altered the Scripture to suit our doctrines.” Truth is objective.

[Forrest]

MC post #19...and most of all, the Holy Spirit of God not only speaks from the WORDS of that Book, but He inhabits that Book and brings it to life in the heart of the discerning believer.

Very good!

[Billie]

Originally Posted by MC1171611

It is without error, and It is God's written word for mankind today. Its "elegance" aside, the King James Bible is the most incredible piece of literature ever written; within Its pages is a complex and inexplicable cross-reference system, Its readers learn a grasp of the English language that schools haven't been able to teach in a hundred years, and most of all, the Holy Spirit of God not only speaks from the WORDS of that Book, but He inhabits that Book and brings it to life in the heart of the discerning believer. No other translation or perversion (as all new versions are) has that kind of power. That's the POWER of the KING that Bro. Kinney was talking about.

MC....I agree whole hearted!! You expressed in words, what I believe
in my heart! Thank you,

Blessings,

Billie

[Will Kinney]

[QUOTE=bibleprotector;12140]
Having said that, I start a count of seven versions from Tyndale 1525, and count the Matthew Bible in 1537, though it in part is Tyndale’s 1534 revised edition as edited by John Rogers.



“These translations to be used, when they agree better with the text than the Bishops’ Bible: Tyndale’s, Matthew’s, Coverdale’s, Whitchurch’s [Great], Geneva.”

Hi brother. After some thought on this and having reconsidered Dr. Vance's article, I think you are probably right on this. I originally thought Wycliffe should be included because it is so well known about, though not actually known, but Wycliffe was translated from the Latin and all the other English bibles were from Hebrew and Greek sources. So I think you are probably right and I have since then changed this part of my previous article.

I have found that I have to sometimes revise a few things after further thought and prayer about it. Thanks for your input and your strong defense of the Book.

Here is what my article reads now.

What were the 7 purifications of God's words in the English language? I think Dr. Laurance M. Vance has hit upon the answer in his informative article found here, where he sums of the various views. http://www.biblebelievers.com/Vance5.html Mr. Vance concludes: "The information we need is to be found, not in the translators' "The Epistle Dedicatory" or their "The Translators to the Reader," but in the "Rules to be Observed in the Translation of the Bible." These general rules, fifteen in number, were advanced for the guidance of the translators. The first and fourteenth, because they directly relate to the subject at hand, are here given in full: "1. The ordinary Bible read in the Church, commonly called the Bishops Bible, to be followed, and as little altered as the Truth of the original will permit." "14. These translations to be used when they agree better with the Text than the Bishops Bible: Tindoll's, Matthews, Coverdale's, Whitchurch's, Geneva." And thus we have our answer. The seven English versions that make the English Bibles up to and including the Authorized Version fit the description in Psalm 12:6 of the words of the Lord being "purified seven times" are Tyndale's, Matthew's, Coverdale's, the Great Bible (printed by Whitechurch), the Geneva Bible, the Bishops' Bible, and the King James Bible."

Accepted in the Beloved,
Will K

[pbiwolski]

Nice save, Will!

Truthfully, I did not notice Wycliffe in the list in your original article. I tend to skim read when the material seems to be familiar. I even gave you the "thumbs up" for the article!

Not to retract the compliment, I'll just say I'm pleased to see the correction. (I appreciate the humility displayed on your part in doing so.)

No more skimming for me!

[bibleprotector]

I like that, I like that a lot.

Originally Posted by Brother Tim

Of course, none of the MV lurkers to sneak around here and then run back to FFF will acknowledge the common sense truth that Will has presented.

This post by Will is one of my favorites of Will's and I told him so earlier in an email.

Actually regarding the above quote - they (FFF feeders) will go back and just mock his posts. I've challenged them to compare their "one-liner responses" with Will's, Brent's, and others' posts and see who puts the time and thought into it.

The folks over there (FFF) are really sharks - responders. They rarely come up with anything on their own, post and defend it. They just hang around and wait for some food to fall in front of them and then they attack it and "feed". I told them this so I am not talking behind their backs. In fact I've challenged one of the hard-core "Feeders" to develop a thesis on his own, study it thru themselves, logically write it out, post it and then defend it.
He hasn't yet -

God bless