Radically Christian Cafe Post New Topic  Post A Reply

my profile | directory

log in | sign up
| search | faq | recent topics | forum index

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
R C Cafe » House Church » Translations of the Bible » serious KJV slant upon church issues
 - Email this page to someone.    
Author serious KJV slant upon church issues
D Anderson
      Bristol, TN USA

 - posted      Profile for D Anderson     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Fifteen general rules were advanced for the guidance of the translators:

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.

2. The names of the Prophets, and the Holy Writers, with the other Names of the Text, to be retained, as nigh as may be, accordingly as they were vulgarly used.

3. The Old Ecclesiastical Words to be kept, viz. the Word Church not to be translated Congregation &c.

4. When a Word hath divers Significations, that to be kept which hath been most commonly used by the most of the Ancient Fathers, being agreeable to the Propriety of the Place, and the Analogy of the Faith.

5. The Division of the Chapters to be altered, either not at all, or as little as may be, if Necessity so require.

6. No Marginal Notes at all to be affixed, but only for the explanation of the Hebrew or Greek Words, which cannot without some circumlocution, so briefly and fitly be expressed in the Text.

7. Such Quotations of Places to be marginally set down as shall serve for the fit Reference of one Scripture to another.

8. Every particular Man of each Company, to take the same Chapter or Chapters, and having translated or amended them severally by himself, where he thinketh good, all to meet together, confer what they have done, and agree for their Parts what shall stand.

9. As any one Company hath dispatched any one Book in this Manner they shall send it to the rest, to be considered of seriously and judiciously, for His Majesty is very careful in this Point.

10. If any Company, upon the Review of the Book so sent, doubt or differ upon any Place, to send them Word thereof; note the Place, and withal send the Reasons, to which if they consent not, the Difference to be compounded at the general Meeting, which is to be of the chief Persons of each Company, at the end of the Work.

11. When any Place of special Obscurity is doubted of, Letters to be directed by Authority, to send to any Learned Man in the Land, for his Judgement of such a Place.

12. Letters to be sent from every Bishop to the rest of his Clergy, admonishing them of this Translation in hand; and to move and charge as many skilful in the Tongues; and having taken pains in that kind, to send his particular Observations to the Company, either at Westminster, Cambridge, or Oxford.

13. The Directors in each Company, to be the Deans of Westminster, and Chester for that Place; and the King's Professors in the Hebrew or Greek in either University.

14. These translations to be used when they agree better with the Text than the Bishops Bible: Tyndale's, Matthew's, Coverdale's, Whitchurch's, Geneva.

15. Besides the said Directors before mentioned, three or four of the most Ancient and Grave Divines, in either of the Universities, not employed in Translating, to be assigned by the vice-Chancellor, upon Conference with the rest of the Heads, to be Overseers of the Translations as well Hebrew as Greek, for the better observation of the 4th Rule above specified.


The work began to take shape in 1604 and progressed steadily. The translators expressed their early thoughts in their preface as: "Truly (good Christian Reader) we never thought from the beginning, that we should need to make a new Translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one,...but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principal good one, not justly to be excepted against, that hath been our endeavor."

They had at their disposal all the previous English translations to which they did not disdain:

"We are so far off from condemning any of their labors that travailed before us in this kind, either in this land or beyond sea, either in King Henry's time, or King Edward's...or Queen Elizabeth's of ever renowned memory, that we acknowledge them to have been raised up of God, for the building and furnishing of his Church, and that they deserve to be had of us and of posterity in everlasting remembrance."

And, as the translators themselves also acknowledged, they had a multitude of sources from which to draw from: "Neither did we think much to consult the Translators or Commentators, CHaldee, Hebrew, Syrian, Greek, or Latin, no nor the Spanish, French, Italian, or Dutch." The Greek editions of Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza were all accessible, as were the COmplutensian and Antwerp Polyglots, and the Latin translations of Pagninus, Termellius, and Beza.

Four years were spent on the preliminary translation by the six groups. The translators were exacting and particular in their work, as related in their preface:

Neither did we disdain to revise that which we had done, and to bring back to the anvil that which we had hammered: but having and using as great helps as were needful, and fearing no reproach for slowness, nor coveting praise for expedition, we have at the length, through the good hand of the Lord upon us, brought the work to that pass that you see.

The conferences of each of the six being ended, nine months were spent at Stationers' Hall in London for review and revision of the work by two men each from the Westminster, Cambridge, and Oxford companies. The final revision was then completed by Myles Smith and Thomas Bilson, with a preface supplied by Smith.

The completed work was issued in 1611, the complete title page reading:

"THE HOLY BIBLE, Conteyning the Old Testament, and the New: Newly Translated out of the Originall tongues: & with the former Translations diligently compared and revised, by his Majesties Special Commandment. Appointed to be read in Churches. Imprinted at London by Robert Barker, Printer to the Kings most Excellent Majestie. ANNO DOM. 1611."

The New Testament had a separate title page, the whole of it reading:

"THE NEWE Testament of our Lord and Saviour JESUS CHRIST. Newly Translated out of the Originall Greeke: and with the former Translations diligently compared and revised, by his Majesties speciall Commandment. IMPRINTED at London by Robert Barker, Printer to the Kings most Excellent Majestie. ANNO DOM. 1611. Cum Privilegio."

The King James Bible was, in its first editions, even larger than the Great Bible. It was printed in black letter with small italicized Roman type TO REPRESENT THOSE WORDS NOT IN THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGES.

A Dedicatory Epistle to King James, which also enhanced the completed work, recalled the King's desire that "there should be one more exact Translation of the Holy Scriptures into the English tongue." The translators expressed that they were "poor instruments to make GOD'S holy Truth to be yet more and more known" while at the same time recognizing that "Popish persons" sought to keep the people "in ignorance and darkness."

The Authorized Version, as it came to be called, went through several editions and revisions. Two notable editions were that of 1629, the first ever printed at Cambridge, and that of 1638, also at Cambridge, which was assisted by John Bois and Samuel Ward, two of the original translators. In 1657, the Parliament considered another revision, but it came to naught. The most important editions were those of the 1762 Cambridge revision by Thomas Paris, and the 1769 Oxford revision by Benjamin Blayney. One of the earliest concordances was A Concordance to the Bible of the Last Translation, by John Downham, affixed to a printing of 1632. The Authorized Version eclipsed all previous versions of the Bible. The Geneva Bible was last printed in 1644, but the notes continued to be published with the King James text. Subsequent versions of the Bible were likewise eclipsed, for theAuthorized Version was the Bible until the advent of the Revised Version and ensuing modern translations. It is still accepted as such by its defenders, and recognized as so by its detractors.

comments - not the 15 rules - from: http://members.core.com/~sbruni00/KJVHistory.html


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
David - mention is made to King Edward. Maybe you can find the biography of King Edward entitled the Britich Josiah. It was printed in 2001 and is out of print already, but it is a good book about this 16 year old king. He died at age 16 or so. But Edward was the beginning of the King James translation. His sister Mary tried to quash that move away from Rome, but his other sister, Elisabeth who came to be queen after 6 years under bloody Mary and was also ammenable to King Edward's settings against Rome. If you can find British Josiah - it is a very good read.
DanG ChicagoArea


 - posted      Profile for Paidion     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
In many places, the King James Translation is true to the Greek text.

In other places, it isn't. Consider for example:

Philippians 2:6 "who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God"

Philippians 2:6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,

These two translations mean exactly the opposite!

Consider the rest of the sentence in the verse that follows:

Philippians 2:7 "but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men."

Which of the two make sense whern followed by verse 7?
"but emptied himself" begins with the word "but" and is therefore a CONTRAST to what was stated in verse 6.
Thus the RSV is a good translation of verse 6, but the KJV doesn't make sense when followed with "but humbled himself".

When one considers the Greek text, it also bears out the RSV as a correct translation of verse 6.

      Virginia U.S.A.

 - posted      Profile for JeffL     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Hello Paidion,

I see no conflict. Remember the KJV is old English. Very old.

Think of it this way...

  • "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:"

In other words, Jesus was truly God. Therefore, for him to claim to be equal with God did not take away anything from the Father. There was no act of robbery from the Father for Jesus to claim Divinity. He could have rightfully come as God and demanded to be treated as God. But in the next verse we see what he humbled himself to do instead.

  • "But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:"

Rather than coming in all his glory as the Son of God he veiled his divinity in humanity. He condescended to take upon himself our lowly position and flesh. But Jesus went even further in that he humbled himself to suffer upon that periods most cruel and humiliating instrument of death. Not merely to die upon a cross, but to die innocently--not being guilty of anything. He took upon himself our guilt and willingly gave his life because he loved us.

He did not die a beaten man because he was truly God and God cannot die. Therefore, he had to agree to take upon himself our flesh in order to die. For, as he said regarding his life, "No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father."

Some have a problem with 2 Cor 5:14, "For the love of Christ constraineth us." They think the word "motivates" would be a better translation. I see no problem with constraineth. The idea is the same to me. It is futher clarified by the following: "that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them." Doesn't the latter help clear it up?

"Iniquitas mentita est sibi"

      Vancouver, WA

 - posted      Profile for Wyoming     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
To me this is all quite clear from the literal Greek-Interlinear KJ3 Bible. It is translated from the same majority Greek text. The RSV and the modern translations were translated from the Alexandrian Text of the Gnostics and philosophers in Egypt.

Philippians 2

5 For think this within you, which mind
was also in Christ Jesus,
6 who subsisting in the form of God
thought it not robbery to be equal with
7 but emptied Himself, taking the form
of a slave, coming to be in the likeness of
8 and coming to be found in figure as a
man, He humbled Himself, coming to be
obedient until death, even the death of a
9 Because of this also God highly exalted
Him and gave Him a name above every
10 that at the name of Jesus “every knee
should bow,” of heavenly beings, and
earthly beings, and under the earth beings,
11 and “every tongue should confess” that
Jesus Christ is “Lord,” to the glory of God
the Father. Isa. 45:23

2 Corinthians 5

12 ¶ For we do not again commend ourselves
to you, but are giving you occasion
of glorying on our behalf, that you may
have it toward the ones boasting before the
face and not in heart.
13 For if we were out of our mind, it was
to God; if we are clear-minded, it is for you.
14 For the love of Christ constrains us,
judging this, that if One died for all, then
the all died;
15 and He died for all, that the living ones
may live no more to themselves, but to the
One dying for them and having been raised.

Alan Hemenway

      Virginia U.S.A.

 - posted      Profile for JeffL     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Recently I was challenged to go back to the interlinear Greek to look up some passages. I did. I wanted to share something which seems a bit clearer now that was a bit confusing in the KJV.

Luke 16:9

And I say unto you, Make to yourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness; that, when ye fail, they may receive you into everlasting habitations.

This is from a parable that Jesus is telling. I have always been confused by this because at first it would seem that Jesus is teaching us to make friends with the worldly so when we fail at Christianity the world will accept us back. But I never accepted this as truth because it contradicts Jesus' mission and His other teachings.

After reading the Interlinear Greek it became clear to me that the passage could be interpreted either as "ye fail" or "it fail." If it is translated as "it fail" --meaning the unrighteous mammon-- then it would align better with Christ's other teachings. Some translations have preferred "it" over "ye".

Accepting "it fail" instead of "ye fail" I interpret this passage to be regarding stewardship of our unrighteous mammon (money) in this sense. Money will rust and moths will eat it up and thieves will break in and steal it. It will not last. So we should be storing up treasures in heaven instead of on earth. And, we should be doing this by using our money (mammon of unrighteousness) to make friends (reconcile souls to Christ) so that when money fails, and it surely will, we will have a home with the saints in glory for all eternity.

I don't think knowing the Greek is essential. But I do think that comparing scripture to scripture is. I can never leave one scripture to oppose another. It took me a while to reconcile this one but is that so unusual? When I read technical books I don't always comprehend everything at first. But as I learn those things which are more easily understood then things start to fall into place and soon I comprehend the more difficult.

Personally, I believe that God has allowed these minor difficulties to persist in scripture so that only the diligent will understand. Notice I didn't say scholarly or intelligent or wise. I said, diligent. The Lord says, "seek and you will find." God will use the simple things of the world to confound the wise and he will give understanding to the simple.

If we diligently seek to know the truth our quest will be answered. But what is promised to those who are not diligent? God will send them strong delusions and cause them to believe a lie. Why? Because they did not love to know the truth enough to spend earnest effort to seek it. They were too casual in their handling of the word of God.

Perhaps this sounds mean spirited for God to send someone strong delusions and cause them to believe lies. This is not as it first appears. God is truth and there is no lie in Him, not even a shadow to suggest any deviation from the straight and narrow way of truth. Yet, when He presents truth to men and makes it as readily available as it is today in America and they do not cherish it and seek it out as the most valuable thing in their life then what can God do? Will He force them to accept it? No, that is not God's way. And, as they turn aside from the light of truth the only thing that exist either left or right of that straight and narrow path which is God's truth is total darkness.

And why does God refer to the path as strait and narrow? Because there is no room for any human wisdom. We must let go of all of our preconceived ideas of truth and embrace only the word of God as our sole authority. We can't even trust the sweetest face, our closest friend, our trusty pastor, our best commentaries. Our first and final authority must be scripture. If anything disagrees with scripture it must be torn from us and thrown away as useless.

"I dare not trust the sweetest frame, but wholly lean on Jesus' name."

"Iniquitas mentita est sibi"


 - posted      Profile for Matthew     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Originally posted by jqlogan:
This is from a parable that Jesus is telling. I have always been confused by this because at first it would seem that Jesus is teaching us to make friends with the worldly so when we fail at Christianity the world will accept us back. But I never accepted this as truth because it contradicts Jesus' mission and His other teachings.

I think perhaps your problem is coming from the fact that you do not consider hell to be eternal. The sda church teaches that the evil will burn up [aka no longer exist] and that hell is not eternal for people. However, the Greek here is “[eonian] booths,” or as the King James says, everlasting habitations. This is a huge problem in the “hell is not eternal” theory.
NOTE: Wikipedia states: "The word aeon, also spelled eon or æon, means 'age', 'forever' or 'for eternity'". and also, "Although a proposal was made in 1957 to define an aeon to be a unit of time equal to one billion years, the idea was not approved as a unit of scientific measure and is seldom used for a specific period of time."

If you read the Greek without the sda slant, the story fits perfectly with what The Bible and Jesus taught. However, if you look at it through sda eyes, it is out of place.

First, notice that Jesus didn’t say, “The Kingdom of Heaven is like unto this…” so He wasn’t talking about heaven. Second, notice that the servant was a liar and a thief, (but not a plagiarist). Then Jesus clearly draws the link between the servant being [fired] pun intended [Big Grin] to the evil being sent to hell when a person chooses to turn away from Christ. {There is strong evidence that “no man can be plucked” but we can, of our own free will, turn away.}

My challenge was to get you to dive into the Interlinear with an open mind. Why use mental gymnastics to explain something that is plain in the text.

Note: I have you at a great disadvantage. I know what you believe, because you are bound to your sda “fundamental beliefs.” I seek to be bound only to The Bible, and the clearer an understand, the better! [Smile]

I would love to share your belief that hell is not eternal, but there is just to much evidence to the contrary. All you need is one statement like the one in Luke 16:9 to cast great doubt on the entire theory.

Feeling right at home,

      Virginia U.S.A.

 - posted      Profile for JeffL     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 

Yes, I believe hell to be eternal. So I have no problem accepting the interpretation of eternal booths as meaning either hell or heaven. But are you using the Interlinear Greek here? It reads, "it-may-be-out-lacking" not "ye". (BTW, ISV 2.0 search has been fixed and is now available for downloading.)

I'm inclind to accept either interpretation but feel that Jesus would rather encourage us to be faithful stewards of his money to use it to win disciples for him than to teach us to be hedging our bets in case we fail. BTW, that is how I first interpreted this verse.

(BTW, we are already engaged in a discussion about eternal fires under another topic so I won't address that here other than to say that you did not answer my question with your verse about unquenchable fires. You only substantiated it and made it all the more wanting. Please refer to my basic question to you as to whether you believe that Jesus' took upon Himself our full punishment as sinners. Did the death of Jesus on the cross satisfy the demands of the law against sinners?)

"Iniquitas mentita est sibi"


 - posted      Profile for Matthew     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Originally posted by jqlogan:

Yes, I believe hell to be eternal.

Okay... I guess I just miss the point, and that's okay. [Smile]


Please refer to my basic question to you as to whether you believe that Jesus' took upon Himself our full punishment as sinners.

Yes. ( Isa. 53:3-6 and 1 Pet. 2:24-25)


Did the death of Jesus on the cross satisfy the demands of the law against sinners?

Yes, see above.
Still at home,


Quick Reply

Formatting Code


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

contact us | housechurch.org | privacy policy

Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3