Is there any evidence that the doctrinal views of leaders in the Church of England may have influenced or colored the translating in the KJV? Did Archbishop Richard Bancroft, Bishop Thomas Bilson, or any of the KJV translators bring their Episcopal Church government views to the original language texts so that their Church of England doctrinal views possibly influenced their translating? Is there any valid evidence of Episcopal, hierarchical, or prelatical bias, coloring, or spin in the KJV? Were any verses in the pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV was a revision changed to strengthen Episcopal church government views or revised to weaken other church government views? Is the doctrine of church government in the pre-1611 English Bible differ at any verses from that in the KJV? How did Archbishop Bancroft and some of the KJV translators interpret certain renderings in the KJV in relation to the matter of church government? Did some of the rules given the translators make some Church of England bias almost unavoidable? Do many English-speaking believers today no longer recognize the veiled language that favored prelatic or Episcopal views? These are important and valid questions that should be considered. It is possible that English-speaking believers in other churches today are no longer aware of the Church of England arguments that were linked to certain renderings.
Is there Episcopal bias evident in the KJV?
- Thread starter logos1560
- Start date
Is there Episcopal bias evident in the KJV?
Demonstrably so.
They were admonished to "keep the old ecclesiastical words", and they (the translators) indeed did so.
Demonstrably so.
They were admonished to "keep the old ecclesiastical words", and they (the translators) indeed did so.
J
jimmudcatgrant
Guest
SAWBONES said:
Just one question. If they were "to keep the old ecclesiastical words", then who originally translated them in that way?
jimmudcatgrant said:
Those who translated the earlier (Bishop's, Great, Matthew's, etc.) English Bible versions.
the KJV translators' mandate included not varying from the text of the Bishops' Bible, except insofar as the truth of the original required.
They didn't obey that mandate very well at all, and they produced a version far superior to the Bishops' Bible, but still chock full of "the old ecclesiastical words".
No matter, as long as you understand the meanings of the words.
OTOH, if you think the KJV's words "bishop", "bishopric"and "priest" describe officers or offices innately common to the Church Universal rather than merely deriving from the Church of England's hierarchical structure, you've misunderstood.
And the issue isn't about archaic or elder English Bible translations, which reflect the times, places and circumstances of their production, but rather the ridiculous notion of KJVOism, specificallly that the KJV is some sort of magically-perfect translation that supercedes all other translations.
jimmudcatgrant said:
Some of those words were sometimes used in the early English translations because of the influence of the Latin on English in that day. William Tyndale had avoided using some of them and was attacked for it. Some later English Bibles such as the Great and the Bishops' Bible used more of them.
James Edmunds and T. S. Bell noted:
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2012
- Messages
- 11,393
- Reaction score
- 2,407
- Points
- 113
- Location
- Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Just one question. If they were "to keep the old ecclesiastical words", then who originally translated them in that way?
An earlier generation of clergy only a generation removed from Roman Catholicism.
An earlier generation of clergy only a generation removed from Roman Catholicism.
An Anglican or Episcopal bias in the KJV would probably make me like it better. That's my church! 
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2012
- Messages
- 6,965
- Reaction score
- 100
- Points
- 48
Where is the infant sprinkling, works salvation, Maryolatry, and a host of other disputed topics being shown favor in the AV? Quite the oppo, baptizo is transliterated, the gospel made plain, and Catholicism damned in the Good Book. And the use of legal terms only makes the meaning all that more accessible.
Sent from my N860 using Tapatalk 2
Sent from my N860 using Tapatalk 2
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2012
- Messages
- 4,013
- Reaction score
- 10
- Points
- 38
That's like asking if the Pope is a Catholic.
This is at the top of the Episcopal Chuch's list of Bible translations.
King James or Authorized Version (the historic Bible of The Episcopal Church)
The Church of England used their own to make the KJV Bible.
Of course it has an Episcopal bias.
KJVOs think it doesn't though. They just don't know Ecclesiastical history.
This is at the top of the Episcopal Chuch's list of Bible translations.
King James or Authorized Version (the historic Bible of The Episcopal Church)
The Church of England used their own to make the KJV Bible.
Of course it has an Episcopal bias.
KJVOs think it doesn't though. They just don't know Ecclesiastical history.
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2012
- Messages
- 6,965
- Reaction score
- 100
- Points
- 48
Demonstrate some of the bias.
I have demonstrated the lack of it.
Tag, you're it.
Find me paedo- baptism...I can find immersion.
Find me Maryolatry...I can find worship of the 'queen of heaven' cursed, and Mary treated as equal to every other obedient Christian.
Find me clergy class..I can find the conquering of the laity condemned.
Truth is, you would think that the half of the translators, who were Bishop's bible loyalists would have slipped something in. Unless you believed in the power of God's Word to transform those who study, and meditate in it.
History tells us that men who showed up to the translation committee with biases, left with out them....changed, Halelujah! I would expect no less.
Sent from my N860 using Tapatalk 2
I have demonstrated the lack of it.
Tag, you're it.
Find me paedo- baptism...I can find immersion.
Find me Maryolatry...I can find worship of the 'queen of heaven' cursed, and Mary treated as equal to every other obedient Christian.
Find me clergy class..I can find the conquering of the laity condemned.
Truth is, you would think that the half of the translators, who were Bishop's bible loyalists would have slipped something in. Unless you believed in the power of God's Word to transform those who study, and meditate in it.
History tells us that men who showed up to the translation committee with biases, left with out them....changed, Halelujah! I would expect no less.
Sent from my N860 using Tapatalk 2
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2012
- Messages
- 4,013
- Reaction score
- 10
- Points
- 38
Please reread logos1560 carefully. He has given several truck loads that I do not think you have noticed.
logos1560 tends to bury one under an avalanche of facts. Many people refuse to read them to their detriment.
Have you read his book? It is just one fact after another.
Many people do not want to know the facts, they choose to remain ignorant and continue to deny reality.
Confronting the facts may mean one has to change his pet doctrines.
Let's do just one and only one.
Works Salvation. The Authorized Version says in Rev 22:14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.
logos1560 tends to bury one under an avalanche of facts. Many people refuse to read them to their detriment.
Have you read his book? It is just one fact after another.
Many people do not want to know the facts, they choose to remain ignorant and continue to deny reality.
Confronting the facts may mean one has to change his pet doctrines.
Let's do just one and only one.
Works Salvation. The Authorized Version says in Rev 22:14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2012
- Messages
- 6,965
- Reaction score
- 100
- Points
- 48
If this is the only verse someone ever heard, they might think that right to the tree of life, and entrance to the city, through the gates, could be obtained through obedience to commandments. They wouldn't know what those commandments were, but hey, we left out context, why not ditch reason, too.bgwilkinson said:
Maybe we should look at verse 11 before it, where He says: let him that is filthy, be filthy still. Maybe the AV is teaching that no one should try to obey....that isn't biased towards ANY Christian sect.
Nice try, but we aren't children, Satan.
Sent from my N860 using Tapatalk 2