Why NOT the KJV?

[elnwood]

the difficulty of a passage can be dealt with some effort and research, on the other hand once the true meaning has been perverted due to paraphrasing, doctrinal and spiritual bankruptcy is the results.

The true meaning is often perverted by the KJV. 1 Thess. 5:22 "avoid every appearance of evil" is a prime example, and the results have been fundamentalism and legalism. Recent translations correct the translation. Modern translations also have a better understanding of Hebrew. We know from Hebraic studies that Psalm 23:4 is better translated "darkest valley" (NIV, HCSB, NET, NLT) instead of "valley of the shadow of death." In other places, the KJV is simply inaccurate: "forever" is not what the Hebrew says in Psalm 23:6.

Debates on manuscripts aside, if you're starting from the presupposition that the KJV is the most accurate translation in order to justify the difficult and antiquated language, you're starting from a faulty presupposition.

 

[arielann81]

When typing this I would like to make clear I would never use the KJV. However this is for pride and stubborn reasons because I was an avid member and fighter of the faith for and IFB KJVonly church.

That being said the KJV is a beautiful translation and those who you say call it "Boring" are okay to call it that, however if that impedes them in their study of the scriptures when you quote them or their church quote them I really don't see the KJV being the agent of that. If I was to read the KJV (which I haven't in 3 years) and someone told me it was boring and that it impedes their understanding of the text (even after I lovingly explained it to them) then it is most likely not the KJV they are misunderstanding but the Bible in general.

I agree with you on the comment about reactions being to the Bible itself instead of the version. I guess I feel the version I'm most excited about is going to come across when I relate to people. When it comes down to it, I'm going to use whatever version is available at the time. Of course if I'm asked I will related what I'm fond of but would encourage the reading of the Word in general and point out that comparing versions is a helpful practice.

 

[Fogetaboutit]

So what am I missing here?

The true meaning is often perverted by the KJV. 1 Thess. 5:22 "avoid every appearance of evil" is a prime example

1 Thessalonians 5:22 (KJV)

22 Abstain from all appearance of evil

____________________________________

1 Thessalonians 5:22 (ESV)

22 Abstain from every form of evil

__________________________________

1 Thessalonians 5:22 (NASB)

22 abstain from every [a]form of evil.

Footnotes:
a.1 Thessalonians 5:22 Or appearance

__________________________________

1 Thessalonians 5:22 (NKJV)

22 Abstain from every form of evil.

In other places, the KJV is simply inaccurate: "forever" is not what the Hebrew says in Psalm 23:6

Psalm 23:6
King James Version (KJV)

6Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life: and I will dwell in the house of the LORD for ever.

_______________________________________

Psalm 23:6 (NASB)

6 Surely goodness and lovingkindness will follow me all the days of my life,
And I will dwell in the house of the LORD forever.

_________________________________

Psalm 23:6 (ESV)

6Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life,and I shall dwell in the house of the LORD forever.

______________________________________

Psalm 23:6 (NKJV)


6 Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me All the days of my life; And I will dwell in the house of the LORD Forever.

Modern translations also have a better understanding of Hebrew. We know from Hebraic studies that Psalm 23:4 is better translated "darkest valley" (NIV, HCSB, NET, NLT) instead of "valley of the shadow of death."

Psalm 23:4(KJV)


4Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me.

___________________________________

Psalm 23:4(ESV)

4 Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for you are with me; your rod and your staff,they comfort me.

_________________________________

Psalm 23:4 (NASB)


4 Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for You are with me; Your rod and Your staff, they comfort me.


____________________________________


Psalm 23:4 (NKJV)

4 Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil; For You are with me; Your rod and Your staff, they comfort me.

if you're starting from the presupposition that the KJV is the most accurate translation in order to justify the difficult and antiquated language, you're starting from a faulty presupposition

My position is that the Greek Text underlying the KJV is supperior than the Critical Text. I also do not believe the language of the KJV is antiquated and I was just pointing out that it is an invalid reason to reject the KJV.

 

[Wayne]

Dr. Ben Shaw has taken this past year to write much on the KJV.

In one of his last posts on the subject, his third point has been particularly helpful:

gptsrabbi: Concluding Thoughts on the KJV

 

[TimV]

My position is that the Greek Text underlying the KJV is supperior the Critical Text.

Isn't that a bit simplistic?? Erasmus didn't even have the whole New Testament.

 

[DMcFadden]

I agree that much of this thread is driven by emotional reasons (both pro and con).

Full disclosure: I was educated by broad evangelicals, learned Greek with a UBS text 40 years ago this fall, and was taught that the TR (and Byzantine tradition generally) was not the "oldest and most reliable" textual tradition. Furthermore, I did not even "touch" a KJV after the NASB and NIV came out (and then the ESV) until the last few years. And, my favorite Bible translation is the ESV (peer pressure).

However, some of the "superiority of the modern translation" arguments are just plain wrong. And, there are so many splendid facts about the KJV that I did not realize until researching it for this anniversary year.

1. I am NOT convinced that finding 3 mss in the Egyptian desert is a reason to overturn the 90-95% of the extant mss. in the Byzantine tradition. And, the so-called "oldest and most reliable" mss. differ from each other in so many places that it is difficult to take the descriptor "more reliable" all that seriously.
2. The language of the KJV does something that few modern translations do: it appeals to the emotive as well as the cognitive and volitional. Given that such a high percentage of the Bible is poetry, wouldn't it seem reasonable that "majesty" and "beauty" ought to be characteristic of the translation? Biblical Hebrew and Koine Greek do not have to sound like a shopping list at the grocery store.
3. Yes, the linguistic advances in Hebraic studies afford additional insight into the text. However, just about any of the modern translations is just as problematic for other reasons.

And, let's get real: * the KJV is NOT difficult to understand compared to some modern translations that require a high level of reading ability.
* the modern translations based upon the critical text ARE the Word of God, regardless of what the KJVO nuts say.

Like it or don't like it; use it or don't use it. But, quit treating it as if it were Protestantism's crazy aunt in the antic. It is the most magnificent rendering of the Word of God into English ever produced by some of the finest scholars ever active in an English-speaking country.

 

[Fogetaboutit]

Isn't that a bit simplistic?? Erasmus didn't even have the whole New Testament.

Well as I have said in a previous post, manuscripts found after that have given more weight to the Textus Receptus. Also let's remember that Erasmus is not the only one to have worked on compiling this Greek text, Stephanus, Beza and the Elzevirs also did some work in this area. Actually if I'm not mistaken the translators of the KJV primarily used the the 5th Edition of Beza to translate the new testament.

If you read "The Traditional Text of the Holy Scriptures" and "The Revision Revised" by John Burgon it should help you to appreciate the text underlying the KJV a bit better. He demonstrates the trustworthiness of the Textus Receptus by appealing to early fathers, early versions (older than Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus) and the vast majority of Byzantine manuscripts, plus he exposes the depravity of the Alexandrian MSS especially Vaticanus (B) , Sinaiticus (Aleph) and Bezae (D) which were given greater weight by Westcott and Hort while rejected by the editors of the Textus Receptus. (only Sinaiticus has been discovered after the compilation of the Textus Receptus)

 

[Martin]

I have always been a KJV reader myself. I am not KJV only but it is my preferred translation to read from. That said, I read, study, and teach from the NASB, NKJV, and ESV.

I have not read all of the replies so forgive me if it has been mentioned, but one thing that I think is a plus for the KJV is longevity. It has been around unchanged for centuries unlike most modern translations that seem to be revised or updated fairly regularly. That is just my though.

 

[bookslover]

I do not use the KJV, because I believe that it's underlying manuscript is fault-laden. It disagrees even with earlier versions of its own manuscript lines, in some pretty significant places. I prefer a translation that has a better documented, well substantiated underlying manuscript...preferably assembled by protestants, rather than Catholics.

Most of the KJV translators were Anglicans - as J. I. Packer loves to remind us non-Anglican Protestants!

---------- Post added at 11:21 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:17 PM ----------

I have always been a KJV reader myself. I am not KJV only but it is my preferred translation to read from. That said, I read, study, and teach from the NASB, NKJV, and ESV.

I have not read all of the replies so forgive me if it has been mentioned, but one thing that I think is a plus for the KJV is longevity. It has been around unchanged for centuries unlike most modern translations that seem to be revised or updated fairly regularly. That is just my though.

Well, not entirely unchanged. There was a major tweaking of the KJV by a committee of scholars from Oxford and Cambridge universities in the 1760s. That is the KJV you buy at the bookstore today.

---------- Post added at 11:23 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:21 PM ----------

I read the ESV because I live in the 21st century, not the 17th.

At church, we use the NASB (groan...).

 

[Martin]

There was a major tweaking of the KJV by a committee of scholars from Oxford and Cambridge universities in the 1760s

Yes, this was the last one know to me. Thankfully, because the original is unreadable to me.

I read the ESV because I live in the 21st century, not the 17th.

Yes, I have to read the other translations at times to help me understand passages. It is really more of a preference issue Also, at times the language can slip up in everyday conversation. I have found myself saying "peradventure" lately.

 

[Bill The Baptist]

the difficulty of a passage can be dealt with some effort and research, on the other hand once the true meaning has been perverted due to paraphrasing, doctrinal and spiritual bankruptcy is the results.

The true meaning is often perverted by the KJV. 1 Thess. 5:22 "avoid every appearance of evil" is a prime example, and the results have been fundamentalism and legalism. Recent translations correct the translation. Modern translations also have a better understanding of Hebrew. We know from Hebraic studies that Psalm 23:4 is better translated "darkest valley" (NIV, HCSB, NET, NLT) instead of "valley of the shadow of death." In other places, the KJV is simply inaccurate: "forever" is not what the Hebrew says in Psalm 23:6.

Debates on manuscripts aside, if you're starting from the presupposition that the KJV is the most accurate translation in order to justify the difficult and antiquated language, you're starting from a faulty presupposition.

I think most of us who have studied this issue realize that there are some serious issues with the TR text that the KJV was based on. What most people probably don't realize are the equally serious issues that exist within the critical text. Dr. Maurice Robinson has created a list of all the readings within the critical text that have no textual support in any manuscript anywhere. Essentially they have come to passages where Sinaticus and Vaticanus have disagreed and they have simply created a combination of the two readings to create a reading that is not found in any text. I consider this to be a major flaw. I also fail to see how "valley of the shadow of death" is significantly different from "darkest valley". The KJV rendering is simply intended to be poetic, which was something that people still understood back then.

 

[Damon Rambo]

I do not use the KJV, because I believe that it's underlying manuscript is fault-laden. It disagrees even with earlier versions of its own manuscript lines, in some pretty significant places. I prefer a translation that has a better documented, well substantiated underlying manuscript...preferably assembled by protestants, rather than Catholics.

Most of the KJV translators were Anglicans - as J. I. Packer loves to remind us non-Anglican Protestants!

Brother, forgive me, but I was not referring to the KJV translation. I was referring to its underlying manuscript, the so called "Textus Receptus," whose first edition was done by Erasmus...a Roman Catholic apologist.

However, as some would point out to Mr. Packer, the Anglicans were high-churchmen whose primary difference with Roman Catholics was that they followed the Archbishop of England, rather than the Pope. Their theology for all intents and purposes was identical.

 

[elnwood]

So what am I missing here?

You're missing the Hebrew. Psalm 23 was originally written in Hebrew. You listed three English translations: The KJV, and two translations that are heavily biased to preserving the KJV (NASB, ESV). The NASB and ESV are reluctant to change the KJV of Psalm 23 because it's so familiar, and they're afraid of losing their readership.

Try looking at what the actual Hebrew says, and look at some translations that are more loyal to the Hebrew than tradition -- NIV, NET, HCSB, etc.

---------- Post added at 05:53 AM ---------- Previous post was at 05:49 AM ----------

I also fail to see how "valley of the shadow of death" is significantly different from "darkest valley". The KJV rendering is simply intended to be poetic, which was something that people still understood back then.

It's not a big deal, but unfortunately many people don't understand it as poetic. I read an article this morning claiming that "The shadow of death is a metaphor for fearing impending death," and it is commonly read at funerals. "Darkest valley" is simply more accurate, and better reflects the context of a shepherd leading his sheep through a dangerous place -- a dark valley -- and protecting the sheep such that they do not fear.

 

[CharlieJ]

However, as some would point out to Mr. Packer, the Anglicans were high-churchmen whose primary difference with Roman Catholics was that they followed the Archbishop of England, rather than the Pope. Their theology for all intents and purposes was identical.

Damon, I suggest you read the 39 articles sometime. You're way off here.

 

[JennyG]

1. I am NOT convinced that finding 3 mss in the Egyptian desert is a reason to overturn the 90-95% of the extant mss. in the Byzantine tradition. And, the so-called "oldest and most reliable" mss. differ from each other in so many places that it is difficult to take the descriptor "more reliable" all that seriously.
2. The language of the KJV does something that few modern translations do: it appeals to the emotive as well as the cognitive and volitional. Given that such a high percentage of the Bible is poetry, wouldn't it seem reasonable that "majesty" and "beauty" ought to be characteristic of the translation? Biblical Hebrew and Koine Greek do not have to sound like a shopping list at the grocery store.


And, let's get real: * the KJV is NOT difficult to understand compared to some modern translations that require a high level of reading ability.


Like it or don't like it; use it or don't use it. But, quit treating it as if it were Protestantism's crazy aunt in the antic. It is the most magnificent rendering of the Word of God into English ever produced by some of the finest scholars ever active in an English-speaking country.

yes indeed!

the Anglicans were high-churchmen whose primary difference with Roman Catholics was that they followed the Archbishop of England, rather than the Pope. Their theology for all intents and purposes was identical.

no, it wasn't - that may be true of the so-called "Anglo-Catholic" movement beginning with Pusey and the young Newman, but not of Anglicanism as a whole, or why did Cranmer get burned? Speaking as a cradle anglican, - no way was it identical to Catholicism!

I'm amazed at the widespread tendency to skip between two, three or even more different versions. However do you memorise any?
Even if the KJV had nothing else to recommend it,- instead of being the most sublime literary production known to man - , I would stick with it for that reason alone!

 

[Bill The Baptist]

So what am I missing here?

You're missing the Hebrew. Psalm 23 was originally written in Hebrew. You listed three English translations: The KJV, and two translations that are heavily biased to preserving the KJV (NASB, ESV). The NASB and ESV are reluctant to change the KJV of Psalm 23 because it's so familiar, and they're afraid of losing their readership.

Try looking at what the actual Hebrew says, and look at some translations that are more loyal to the Hebrew than tradition -- NIV, NET, HCSB, etc.

---------- Post added at 05:53 AM ---------- Previous post was at 05:49 AM ----------

I also fail to see how "valley of the shadow of death" is significantly different from "darkest valley". The KJV rendering is simply intended to be poetic, which was something that people still understood back then.

It's not a big deal, but unfortunately many people don't understand it as poetic. I read an article this morning claiming that "The shadow of death is a metaphor for fearing impending death," and it is commonly read at funerals. "Darkest valley" is simply more accurate, and better reflects the context of a shepherd leading his sheep through a dangerous place -- a dark valley -- and protecting the sheep such that they do not fear.

I think that we should all acknowledge that there is no perfect translation and there likely never will be. That is because every translation is done by men and women who are sinful and fallible. The miracle of the Scriptures is that God has supernaturally preserved their message despite the things that men would do to them.

 

[Fogetaboutit]

You're missing the Hebrew. Psalm 23 was originally written in Hebrew. You listed three English translations: The KJV, and two translations that are heavily biased to preserving the KJV (NASB, ESV). The NASB and ESV are reluctant to change the KJV of Psalm 23 because it's so familiar, and they're afraid of losing their readership.

Try looking at what the actual Hebrew says, and look at some translations that are more loyal to the Hebrew than tradition -- NIV, NET, HCSB, etc.

So are you suggesgting that the NIV, NET and HCSB are the best English translations available today?

 

[TimV]

Well as I have said in a previous post, manuscripts found after that have given more weight to the Textus Receptus.

Again, simplistic. We had a long thread some time ago about the last few verses of Rev. that were torn off Erasums' single copy of Rev (which was smeared too) and even a hard core KJV man admitted after checking that only 4 out of 250 Greek manuscripts containing Rev. 22:19 agree with the Textus Receptus. The various editions of both the TR and KJV ignore the overwhelming witness of Byzantine family texts where they differ.

 

[py3ak]

I do not use the KJV, because I believe that it's underlying manuscript is fault-laden. It disagrees even with earlier versions of its own manuscript lines, in some pretty significant places. I prefer a translation that has a better documented, well substantiated underlying manuscript...preferably assembled by protestants, rather than Catholics.

Most of the KJV translators were Anglicans - as J. I. Packer loves to remind us non-Anglican Protestants!

Brother, forgive me, but I was not referring to the KJV translation. I was referring to its underlying manuscript, the so called "Textus Receptus," whose first edition was done by Erasmus...a Roman Catholic apologist.

However, as some would point out to Mr. Packer, the Anglicans were high-churchmen whose primary difference with Roman Catholics was that they followed the Archbishop of England, rather than the Pope. Their theology for all intents and purposes was identical.

[Moderator]Damon, this is either intolerable ignorance or wilful misrepresentation. You need to show (contrary to the ideas of Newton, Ryle, Toplady, and Scott, among others) that the 39 Articles are functionally Roman Catholic in their theology or withdraw this remark.[/Moderator]

 

[elnwood]

You're missing the Hebrew. Psalm 23 was originally written in Hebrew. You listed three English translations: The KJV, and two translations that are heavily biased to preserving the KJV (NASB, ESV). The NASB and ESV are reluctant to change the KJV of Psalm 23 because it's so familiar, and they're afraid of losing their readership.

Try looking at what the actual Hebrew says, and look at some translations that are more loyal to the Hebrew than tradition -- NIV, NET, HCSB, etc.

So are you suggesting that the NIV, NET and HCSB are the best English translations available today?

I'm suggesting that the NIV, NET and HCSB translate the Hebrew of Psalm 23 more accurately than the KJV, NASB, and ESV. "Best" is highly subjective, and it depends on a variety of other factors depending on what your purpose is.

 

[J. Dean]

While people are quick to point to the KJV onlies for their "bigotry" I think some of them should look in the mirror before pointing fingers.

Don't you think that's a little on the harsh side, my friend? If you enjoy the KJV, more power to you; I don't begrudge that. What I'm saying is that the KJV is not the only translation out there. That's not "bigotry," that's the truth.

In fact, it was due in part to Reformed people that I switched from the KJV (which I was raised on). For example, Francis Schaeffer deals with the passage of Daniel 3, in which Nebuchadnezzer talks about the fourth being in the furnace with Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, and the KJV refers to him as like "The Son of God." But Schaeffer points out (correctly) that this is an incorrect translation, and that it should be rendered "a son of the gods." It has been understood that the KJV's text can give the false impression that Nebuchadnezzer suddenly has a Messianic understanding that he simply would not have had, not to mention that the confusion is added when you later see Nebuchadnezzer refer to this same being as an angel. Do you see the potential problem?

Or how about a more basic one: thou shatle not kill? It is universally understood that a more proper rendering of this commandment is "Thou shalt not murder," and later translations have correctly made this adjustment. And rightly so, because there IS a difference between killing and murder.

I've already pointed out the difficulty of the word "conversation" as being used in the KJV, and the problem is that people will come to the text and attach a 21st century understanding and interpretation to a word that had a very different meaning in the 17th century. It simply makes more sense to upgrade the words into more relevant forms instead of running the risk of confusing the reader. Why wouldn't you want to remedy something like that which could become a potential stumblingblock?

I've no grudge against the KJV: it served its purpose for its time. The language is beautiful, and certain passages reflect that beauty. But the KJV has its limits in some areas, and it only makes more sense to update the translation if doing so will widen the potential audience of the the Word of God. Why would you leave words or pasages in a format that open the door for serious misunderstanding when rendering a more modern translation will eliminate this problem?

Just makes sense to me.

 

[Fogetaboutit]

Again, simplistic. We had a long thread some time ago about the last few verses of Rev. that were torn off Erasums' single copy of Rev (which was smeared too) and even a hard core KJV man admitted after checking that only 4 out of 250 Greek manuscripts containing Rev. 22:19 agree with the Textus Receptus. The various editions of both the TR and KJV ignore the overwhelming witness of Byzantine family texts where they differ.

You seem to be quite selective in you choice of verse, what about the 100s of verses which have been change based on the authority of a handfull of contradicting manuscripts against the vast majority agreeing manuscripts. I'm not debating for the perfection of any versions or specific greek texts, I'm not qualify to determine that, but I'm quite convinced that overall the TR is more reliable than the Critical Text base on the evidence we have.

 

[TimV]

You seem to be quite selective in you choice of verse, what about the 100s of verses which have been change based on the authority of a handfull of contradicting manuscripts against the vast majority agreeing manuscripts.

Which has nothing to do with the subject. I'm just pointing out the TR ignores the MT just like the CT ignores the MT.

I'm not debating for the perfection of any versions or specific greek texts, I'm not qualify to determine that, but I'm quite convinced that overall the TR is more reliable than the Critical Text base on the evidence we have.

A lot of us here would love to see something like an MT version of the NT. I for one would prefer that over the TR or the CV because they both have the same weaknesses you're pointing out in the CT. In the mean time, I've got a NKJV and and ESV within easy reach!

 

[Fogetaboutit]

Don't you think that's a little on the harsh side, my friend? If you enjoy the KJV, more power to you; I don't begrudge that. What I'm saying is that the KJV is not the only translation out there. That's not "bigotry," that's the truth.

I was not necessarily saying this specifically for you, I was just saying that many people will accuse KJV onlies of bigotry and having bad arguments while they themselves use arguments that are just as bad and are less than "loving" when dealing with them. 9 time out of 10 this debate is done on the bases of emotions. (I know this goes both ways and I was not trying to justify one side or the other). There are bad arguments on both sides I was just pointing the "emotion" factor to try to limit the straw man tactics. Most people just accept whatever they hear without checking the validity of the arguments. I'm not trying to force my view on anybody (which is KJV priority) but I do not like seeing a misrepresentation of my views especially when invalid argument are used. I do believe this is as important as any doctrinal issues, but I also realize that utlimately only God can bring truth and agreement in theses matters.

You mentionned the few issues you have with the KJV, have you ever look a the issues with the new versions? Most issues I see people have with the KJV are somewhat trivial. The Killing vs Murdering argument to me seems somewhat less important than the hundreds of verses and words omitted in the newer version based on the Critical Text. In Genesis we see places where the word "create" is used and other places where the word "made" is used. Even if these words do not have exact same definitions, the context usually let's you know what the intended meaning is.

Even if you do not hold to the perfection of the KJV I do believe a case can be made of it greater realiabilty compared to newer versions based on the CT when you look at the big pictures.

I would not be against updating certain words in the KJV but so far I have seen no translation in English that have done that while keeping the reliablity of the Ecclisiasitcal Text/Traditional Text.

---------- Post added at 02:53 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:45 PM ----------

Which has nothing to do with the subject. I'm just pointing out the TR ignores the MT just like the CT ignores the MT.

The TR does not ignore the MT, when the TR (the one used by the tranlators of the KJV) was compiled there was no such thing as what is now know as the MT. But I do believe that early quotations and early version can have weight in this argument. The MT deals solely with Greek MSS at least I think.

 

[Damon Rambo]

I do not use the KJV, because I believe that it's underlying manuscript is fault-laden. It disagrees even with earlier versions of its own manuscript lines, in some pretty significant places. I prefer a translation that has a better documented, well substantiated underlying manuscript...preferably assembled by protestants, rather than Catholics.

Most of the KJV translators were Anglicans - as J. I. Packer loves to remind us non-Anglican Protestants!

Brother, forgive me, but I was not referring to the KJV translation. I was referring to its underlying manuscript, the so called "Textus Receptus," whose first edition was done by Erasmus...a Roman Catholic apologist.

However, as some would point out to Mr. Packer, the Anglicans were high-churchmen whose primary difference with Roman Catholics was that they followed the Archbishop of England, rather than the Pope. Their theology for all intents and purposes was identical.

[Moderator]Damon, this is either intolerable ignorance or wilful misrepresentation. You need to show (contrary to the ideas of Newton, Ryle, Toplady, and Scott, among others) that the 39 Articles are functionally Roman Catholic in their theology or withdraw this remark.[/Moderator]

I will not withdraw my remark. Obviously there are differences (in this early stage especially), HOWEVER: if you read my comment in context, I was not speaking of Anglicans in general, but of the KJV translators IN PARTICULAR. Notice the past tense usage, not present tense. There is excellent evidence that the KJV translators were Maryolators (both in their writings, and in their insistence on capitalizing the word "Virgin.")

However, since you insist, in terms of High Church structure, it is certainly similar to Rome. Also, if you will examine article 16, which notes the possibility of losing one's salvation due to sin after baptism, baptismal regeneration, and a whole host of other issues. However, I agree with you that as a whole, the Anglican church which arose out of the English reformation is not nearly as far out on a limb as the RCC.

 

[TimV]

The TR does not ignore the MT, when the TR (the one used by the tranlators of the KJV) was compiled there was no such thing as what is now know as the MT. But I do believe that early quotations and early version can have weight in this argument. The MT deals solely with Greek MSS at least I think.

There have been over 100 editions of the TR and they all ignore the MT.

 

[py3ak]

I do not use the KJV, because I believe that it's underlying manuscript is fault-laden. It disagrees even with earlier versions of its own manuscript lines, in some pretty significant places. I prefer a translation that has a better documented, well substantiated underlying manuscript...preferably assembled by protestants, rather than Catholics.

Most of the KJV translators were Anglicans - as J. I. Packer loves to remind us non-Anglican Protestants!

Brother, forgive me, but I was not referring to the KJV translation. I was referring to its underlying manuscript, the so called "Textus Receptus," whose first edition was done by Erasmus...a Roman Catholic apologist.

However, as some would point out to Mr. Packer, the Anglicans were high-churchmen whose primary difference with Roman Catholics was that they followed the Archbishop of England, rather than the Pope. Their theology for all intents and purposes was identical.

[Moderator]Damon, this is either intolerable ignorance or wilful misrepresentation. You need to show (contrary to the ideas of Newton, Ryle, Toplady, and Scott, among others) that the 39 Articles are functionally Roman Catholic in their theology or withdraw this remark.[/Moderator]

I will not withdraw my remark. Obviously there are differences (in this early stage especially), HOWEVER: if you read my comment in context, I was not speaking of Anglicans in general, but of the KJV translators IN PARTICULAR. Notice the past tense usage, not present tense. There is excellent evidence that the KJV translators were Maryolators (both in their writings, and in their insistence on capitalizing the word "Virgin.")

However, since you insist, in terms of High Church structure, it is certainly similar to Rome. Also, if you will examine article 16, which notes the possibility of losing one's salvation due to sin after baptism, baptismal regeneration, and a whole host of other issues. However, I agree with you that as a whole, the Anglican church which arose out of the English reformation is not nearly as far out on a limb as the RCC.

[Moderator]Damon, that is nowhere near good enough. Speaking specifically of the Anglican men who worked on the translation of the AV, you would need to show that the main point of division from Rome was not with regard to any of the solas of the Reformation, but was centered on the Pope. And you would have to do that with documentation, not assertions.[/Moderator]

 

[Damon Rambo]

I do not use the KJV, because I believe that it's underlying manuscript is fault-laden. It disagrees even with earlier versions of its own manuscript lines, in some pretty significant places. I prefer a translation that has a better documented, well substantiated underlying manuscript...preferably assembled by protestants, rather than Catholics.

Most of the KJV translators were Anglicans - as J. I. Packer loves to remind us non-Anglican Protestants!

Brother, forgive me, but I was not referring to the KJV translation. I was referring to its underlying manuscript, the so called "Textus Receptus," whose first edition was done by Erasmus...a Roman Catholic apologist.

However, as some would point out to Mr. Packer, the Anglicans were high-churchmen whose primary difference with Roman Catholics was that they followed the Archbishop of England, rather than the Pope. Their theology for all intents and purposes was identical.

[Moderator]Damon, this is either intolerable ignorance or wilful misrepresentation. You need to show (contrary to the ideas of Newton, Ryle, Toplady, and Scott, among others) that the 39 Articles are functionally Roman Catholic in their theology or withdraw this remark.[/Moderator]

I will not withdraw my remark. Obviously there are differences (in this early stage especially), HOWEVER: if you read my comment in context, I was not speaking of Anglicans in general, but of the KJV translators IN PARTICULAR. Notice the past tense usage, not present tense. There is excellent evidence that the KJV translators were Maryolators (both in their writings, and in their insistence on capitalizing the word "Virgin.")

However, since you insist, in terms of High Church structure, it is certainly similar to Rome. Also, if you will examine article 16, which notes the possibility of losing one's salvation due to sin after baptism, baptismal regeneration, and a whole host of other issues. However, I agree with you that as a whole, the Anglican church which arose out of the English reformation is not nearly as far out on a limb as the RCC.

[Moderator]Damon, that is nowhere near good enough. Speaking specifically of the Anglican men who worked on the translation of the AV, you would need to show that the main point of division from Rome was not with regard to any of the solas of the Reformation, but was centered on the Pope. And you would have to do that with documentation, not assertions.[/Moderator]

Since I did not make any such assertion, there is no reason why I must show documentation. What there personal motive was for not aligning with the Church of Rome was, I know not (though certainly as a whole, Anglicanism can be traced to Henry the VIII's dalliances). My statement (if you read above) did not reference their motivation, but their actual doctrine.

Further, friend, I make absolutely no apologies for criticizing High Church Anglicanism, nor the Anglican translators of the KJV. Last time I checked, the teachings were well outside of confessional reformed teachings. Do you believe your continuing salvation is based on abstention from sin? Do you deny the Perseverance of the Saints? Do you believe in Baptismal Regeneration? While I certainly appreciate the work of men like Ryle and Newton (I have to go back and look, but I could have sworn Newton and Ryle were low-churchmen, who asserted the POS...maybe I am wrong..), I will not apologize for criticizing those who hold to popish doctrine.

 

[Bill The Baptist]

In fact, it was due in part to Reformed people that I switched from the KJV (which I was raised on). For example, Francis Schaeffer deals with the passage of Daniel 3

Francis Schaeffer, while a great philosopher and apologist and a Presbyterian, was hardly reformed. For evidence, read his book "25 Basic Bible Studies"

 

[Damon Rambo]

the Anglicans were high-churchmen whose primary difference with Roman Catholics was that they followed the Archbishop of England, rather than the Pope. Their theology for all intents and purposes was identical.

no, it wasn't - that may be true of the so-called "Anglo-Catholic" movement beginning with Pusey and the young Newman, but not of Anglicanism as a whole, or why did Cranmer get burned? Speaking as a cradle anglican, - no way was it identical to Catholicism!

Have you never read Cranmer's Ten Articles? They teach:

Article 2: Baptismal Regeneration
Article 3: Confession absolution and Penance
Article 4: Transubstantiation
Article 5: "Meritorious" salvation...not Sola Fide
Article 6: Idols in Church
Article 7: Honoring of Saints and the Virgin Mary
Article 8: The INVOCATION of Saints
Article 9: Holy Water, Vestments, etc.
Article 10: Purgatory and prayer for the dead

Though Cranmer later repudiated SOME of these articles (such as Purgatory and partially transubstantiation), he did not repudiate all of them. In truth, Cranmer was put to death by a monarch that was very angry at him for facilitating her father's divorce from her mother...