|
|
Post by 777 on Feb 11, 2020 11:53:54 GMT -5
exactly , even luther had the support of some leaders . BUT DID THEY HELP HIM WRITE IT . NOPE . ITS the same with this , YES KING JAMES SUPPORTED A NEW BIBLE , YET IN NOWAY DID HE INFLUENCE ITS TRANSLATION .PEROID . He was not part of anything to do with the translating of that bible King James was a king who do as kings do , he was busying trying to run a kingdom , not playing interpreter of the bible . Folks , we don't heed men with agendas that try and destroy the validity of a BIBLE I do happen to know is TRUTH . Fact is I even went to lengths to prove the KJV accurate , I did research even our own langague , from saxon , to middle , to early modern which is the kjv s transalation , early modern . GUESS what the scriptures lined up in saxon as they did in middle English , RIGHT WITH THE KJV . SURE DID . IT SURE DID . and yet men try and claim we don't have an accurate English version or that the newer ones are more accurate . This lamb aint a heeding them . FOr I was long convinced as I read the kjv and yes I read other versions too , never had peace in them though and I sure did find some errors , some versions were minor errors and some were far , and do I mean FAR WORSE . But not the KJV , it lined up the even what Wycliff had wrote , with what Tyndale had wrote too and with what I could find in even earlier versions , including even saxon itself , OLD ENGLISH . MEN been a lying to us my friend . OH they have been . But you know this already . SO hands up and praise the LORD . You guys know that I am 100% for the King James bible, King James may of had nothing to do with the translation of it, but still he encouraged its translation and supported it. And I personally do not know what the position of christianity.com is, was just trying to show why it is called the authorized version. |
|
|
|
Post by Giller on Feb 11, 2020 11:56:05 GMT -5
And even I believe there has been false accusations on king James himself, which some of the negative things written about King James were written by enemies of King James.
|
|
|
|
Post by Giller on Feb 11, 2020 14:09:23 GMT -5
Here is a bit of information on the translators of the King James bible from David W. Daniels, which he has studied this stuff, more than most, and continues to do so: (https://www.chick.com/information/article?id=who-were-king-james-translators)(© 2001 by David W. Daniels
Question: Who were the translators of the King James Bible?
Answer: God brought together over 54 of the finest Bible translators English has ever known, to translate the King James Bible.
Researching the Translators
For twenty years (the late 1830s to the late 1850s) researcher Alexander McClure pored over records to learn all he could about who translated the King James Bible. His resulting book, Translators Revived: Biographical Notes on the King James Version Translators, stands as a monument to these dedicated Christian men. It may be read online at www.books.google.com. I highly recommend it.
A Few Short Examples
Here are some of the qualified translators of the King James Bible.
John Harman, M.A., New College, Oxford.
In 1585 he had been appointed King's Professor of Greek. He had published Latin translations of Calvin's and Beza's sermons, and was also adept in Greek. He was a member of the New Testament group that met at Oxford.
John Spencer
At 19 years of age he had been elected Greek lecturer for Corpus Christi College in Oxford University. It was written of him, "Of his eminent scholarship there can be no question." He was a member of the New Testament group (Romans through Jude) that met at Westminster.
Thomas Bilson
McClure wrote that he was "so complete in divinity, so well skilled in languages, so read in the Fathers and Schoolmen, so judicious in making use of his readings, that at length he was found to be no longer a soldier, but commander in chief in the spiritual warfare" (Translators Revived, pp. 214-416).
Dr. George Abbot, B.D., D.D.
Dr. Abbot started at Oxford in 1578, getting his B.D. in 1593 and at 35 years of age both received his doctorate and became first Master of University College, and later Vice Chancellor. He became Bishop of Lichfield in 1609 and Archbishop of Canterbury in 1611. He was regarded as "the head of the Puritans within the Church of England." He was in the Oxford New Testament group.
Sir Henry Saville
In 1565 Sir Saville was Fellow of Merton College and Warden in 1585. By 1596 he was Provost of Eton College and tutor to Queen Elizabeth I. He founded the Savillian professorships of Mathematics and Astronomy at Oxford. His many works include an 8-volume set of the writings of Chrysostom.(1) He also worked in the New Testament group at Oxford.
Lancelot Andrewes
From Terence H. Brown, (Secretary of the Trinitarian Bible Society, London, England) comes this description of Westminster committee member Lancelot Andrewes:
He "... had his early education at Coopers Free School and Merchant Taylors School, where his rapid progress in the study of the ancient languages was brought to the notice of Dr. Watts, the founder of some scholarships at Pembroke Hall, Cambridge. Andrewes was sent to that College, where he took his B.A. degree and soon afterward was elected Fellow. He then took his Master's degree and began to study divinity and achieved great distinction as a lecturer. He was raised to several positions of influence in the Church of England and distinguished himself as a diligent and excellent preacher, and became Chaplain to Queen Elizabeth I. King James I promoted him to be Bishop of Chester in 1605 and also gave him the influential position of Lord Almoner. He later became Bishop of Ely and Privy Counsellor. Toward the end of his life he was made Bishop of Winchester.
"It is recorded that Andrewes was a man of deep piety and that King James had such great respect for him that in his presence he refrained from the levity in which he indulged at other times. A sermon preached at Andrewes' funeral in 1626 paid tribute to his great scholarship:
'His knowledge in Latin, Greek, Hebrew, Chaldee, Syriac and Arabic, besides fifteen modern languages was so advanced that he may be ranked as one of the rarest linguists in Christendom. A great part of five hours every day he spent in prayer, and in his last illness he spent all his time in prayer -- and when both voice and eyes and hands failed in their office, his countenance showed that he still prayed and praised God in his heart, until it pleased God to receive his blessed soul to Himself.'"
Transcending Their Human Limits
Gustavus S. Paine, author of The Men Behind the King James Version, made this assessment about the work of the combined translators:
"Though we may challenge the idea of word-by-word inspiration, we surely must conclude that these were men able, in their profound moods, to transcend their human limits. In their own words, they spake as no other men spake because they were filled with the Holy Ghost. Or, in the clumsier language of our time, they so adjusted themselves to each other and to the work as to achieve a unique coordination and balance, functioning thereafter as an organic entity--no mere mechanism equal to the sum of its parts, but a whole greater than all of them." (2)
While these scholars were perfectly suited for the task of translation individually, they still had to agree on every single word of the Bible. That meant man's mere opinion could not be allowed to stand in the text. ...)
You are totally right Frienduff in your assessment in King James not having part of the translation, just giving approval to it.
When I read this saying "Because James was so closely involved with the work", from christianity.com, I never gave much thought to what they might be meaning by it, all I do know is that he was for the project, and encouraged the work of it, and who knows if he would check up on them now and again, so to see how the work was progressing.
But nevertheless, thanks Frienduff for bringing this to our attention. |
|
Dezi
Junior Member
Posts: 431 
|
Post by Dezi on Feb 11, 2020 14:09:52 GMT -5
Please don't think I'm being contrary... but there is so much I don't know yet. I have never heard of the Books of the Apocrypha until this thread. I read a little online and it makes no sense to me that if they were in the original writings of the bible that we don't have them today? Why were they removed and what are they about? How do we know which books are from God if they are all mixed up like this? How do we know what King James did was right? Did he have the original works of the Bible and how do we know? Just feeling confused about all this.
|
|
|
|
Post by Giller on Feb 11, 2020 14:26:13 GMT -5
Please don't think I'm being contrary... but there is so much I don't know yet. I have never heard of the Books of the Apocrypha until this thread. I read a little online and it makes no sense to me that if they were in the original writings of the bible that we don't have them today? Why were they removed and what are they about? How do we know which books are from God if they are all mixed up like this? How do we know what King James did was right? Did he have the original works of the Bible and how do we know? Just feeling confused about all this. Here is info on this: (https://www.chick.com/information/article?id=Did-King-James-Contain-Apocrypha)(From "The Answer Book" ©1989 Samuel C. Gipp. Reproduced by permission
QUESTION: Didn't the King James Bible when first printed contain the Apocrypha?
ANSWER: Yes.
EXPLANATION: Many critics of the perfect Bible like to point out that the original King James had the Apocrypha in it as though that fact compromises its integrity. But several things must be examined to get the factual picture.
First, in the days in which our Bible was translated, the Apocrypha was accepted reading based on its historical value, though not accepted as Scripture by anyone outside of the Catholic church. The King James translators therefore placed it between the Old and New Testaments for its historical benefit to its readers. They did not integrate it into the Old Testament text as do the corrupt Alexandrian manuscripts.
That they rejected the Apocrypha as divine is very obvious by the seven reasons which they gave for not incorporating it into the text. They are as follows:
1. Not one of them is in the Hebrew language, which was alone used by the inspired historians and poets of the Old Testament.
2. Not one of the writers lays any claim to inspiration.
3. These books were never acknowledged as sacred Scriptures by the Jewish Church, and therefore were never sanctioned by our Lord.
4. They were not allowed a place among the sacred books, during the first four centuries of the Christian Church.
5. They contain fabulous statements, and statements which contradict not only the canonical Scriptures, but themselves; as when, in the two Books of Maccabees, Antiochus Epiphanes is made to die three different deaths in as many different places.
6. It inculcates doctrines at variance with the Bible, such as prayers for the dead and sinless perfection.
7. It teaches immoral practices, such as lying, suicide, assassination and magical incantation.
If having the Apocrypha between the Testaments disqualifies it as authoritative, then the corrupt Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts from Alexandria, Egypt must be totally worthless since their authors obviously didn't have the conviction of the King James translators and incorporated its books into the text of the Old Testament thus giving it authority with Scripture. )
So you see big reasons here why it is not considered scripture.
And even in its historical value you have to be careful at the different accounts.
|
|
|
|
Post by Giller on Feb 11, 2020 14:32:15 GMT -5
And one thing that I find that the KJV bible does is it uplifts the doctrines of the bible way more than other translations in English do.
And it has spurred many revivals in the past, the fruit that it has brought forth, is wow!!!
But now we have many translations in play, and also it is one of the greatest times of darkness.
|
|
|
|
Post by Giller on Feb 11, 2020 14:42:15 GMT -5
Psa 12:6-7
(6) The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
(7) Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.
God promised to preserve his word, and he did so through having it written down, and in the English language his words have been preserved through the KJV.
When God promises something, he keeps his word, and has kept his word.
And he makes a way so we can know what is his word or not.
You will bear witness in your heart, you will see it by its fruit, you will see it what is says of the Lord, and how it glorifies him, you can see it in many ways.
The modern translations tend to add or take away from bible verses, some verses are not even there, or do not even show up when you compare them.
|
|
|
|
Post by Giller on Feb 11, 2020 14:47:45 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by solid on Feb 11, 2020 15:14:58 GMT -5
Please don't think I'm being contrary... but there is so much I don't know yet. I have never heard of the Books of the Apocrypha until this thread. I read a little online and it makes no sense to me that if they were in the original writings of the bible that we don't have them today? Why were they removed and what are they about? How do we know which books are from God if they are all mixed up like this? How do we know what King James did was right? Did he have the original works of the Bible and how do we know? Just feeling confused about all this. Something John has pointed out is that the books called Apocrypha were segregated in the middle instead of being in logical order, like Rest of Esther. That shows they were never fully accepted. |
|
Dezi
Junior Member
Posts: 431
|
Post by Dezi on Feb 11, 2020 16:06:50 GMT -5
Thank you for your help here Giller... this helps me! |
|
|
|
Post by 777 on Feb 11, 2020 16:41:54 GMT -5
Please don't think I'm being contrary... but there is so much I don't know yet. I have never heard of the Books of the Apocrypha until this thread. I read a little online and it makes no sense to me that if they were in the original writings of the bible that we don't have them today? Why were they removed and what are they about? How do we know which books are from God if they are all mixed up like this? How do we know what King James did was right? Did he have the original works of the Bible and how do we know? Just feeling confused about all this. |
|
Dezi
Junior Member
Posts: 431
|
Post by Dezi on Feb 12, 2020 13:44:02 GMT -5
Just wanted to quickly share with you all that I am working on reading the KJV... so far it is going pretty well! Thank you all for helping me reconsider this!
|
|
|
|
Post by 777 on Feb 20, 2020 14:12:18 GMT -5
Just wanted to quickly share with you all that I am working on reading the KJV... so far it is going pretty well! Thank you all for helping me reconsider this! |
|
Dezi
Junior Member
Posts: 431
|
Post by Dezi on Feb 20, 2020 15:16:48 GMT -5
Just wanted to quickly share with you all that I am working on reading the KJV... so far it is going pretty well! Thank you all for helping me reconsider this! I agree....I've been doing this for about a week. I am gradually moving over to full KJV. It has gotten easier... I appreciate everyone's encouragement! |
|
|
|
Post by frienduff on Feb 21, 2020 12:00:57 GMT -5
It'll get easier the more you read it. I agree....I've been doing this for about a week. I am gradually moving over to full KJV. It has gotten easier... I appreciate everyone's encouragement! You are LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOVED my dear sister . Yes and let us keep feasting on the pure and holy words in that wonderful bible . Sister , I did read books in the achr, how ever you spell it . And I tell us all , ITS NOT AT ALL the same , it has the wisdom of men , mixed in with truths . ITS NOT the same . The fact is , while reading some of them , I SEEN Catholicisms hand print in it . YEP . Yeah . we don't need those books . Lets be encouraged with the bible and our LORD and encourage one another daily . My dear sister , you are LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOVED . its feasting time again on the bible . |
|
