Message to all users:

Super Member Subscription

As most of you are aware, we had a crash to forums and were down for over two days a while back. We did have to do an upgrade to the vbulletin software to fix the forums and that has created changes, VB no longer provide the hybrid or threaded forums. There are some issues/changes to the forums we are not able to fix or change. Also note the link address change, please let friends and posters know of the changed link to the forums. For now this is the only link available, but if clicking on forum on homepage it will now send you to this link. (edited to add https: now working.

Again, we are working through some of the posting and viewing issues to learn how to post with the changes, you will have to check and test the different features, icons that have changed. You may also want to go to profile settings,since many of the notifications, information in profile, also to update/edit your avatar by clicking on avatar space, pull down arrow next to login for user settings.

Edit to add "How to read forums, to make it easier."
Pull down arrow next to login name upper right select profile, or user settings when page opens to profile,select link in tab that says Account. Then select/choose options, go down to Conversation Detail Options, Select Display mode Posts, NOT Activity, that selection of Posts will make the pages of discussions go to last post on last page rather than out of order that happens if you choose activity threads. Then be sure to go to bottom and select SAVE Changes in your profile options. You can then follow discussions by going through the pages, to the last page having latest responses. Then click on the other links Privacy, Notifications, to select viewing options,the forums get easier if you open all the tabs or links in your profile, user settings and select options. To join Super Member, pull down arrow next to login name, select User Settings and then click on tab/link at top that says Subscriptions.

Thank you for your patience and God Bless.

Diane S
See more
See less

God's Word Distributed Throughout The World?

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by logos1560 View Post

    You demonstrate that you do not practice what you preach since you do not prove what you claim concerning the KJV to be true.

    Sound evidence and proof have been presented, but you may choose to close your eyes to it. Are you suggesting that you have never read the rules for the translating? The rules for the translating are proof of King James' control over its making. The rules dictated that the Bishops' Bible be the starting English text to be followed.

    In his book printed in 1730, Anthony Johnson noted that “the King recommended the following rules to be by them most carefully observed” (Historical Account, p. 93). Likewise, John Lewis affirmed that “his Majesty recommended the following rules to them to be very carefully observed” (Complete History, p. 317). P. W. Raidabaugh noted that Bancroft that sent a copy of the rules along with a letter from the king to Cambridge for the persons selected as translators (History, p. 55). The evidence that King James made or approved the rules for the translating would demonstrate his great influence on it.

    Furthermore, King James followed up on the rules by having Archbishop Richard Bancroft oversee the translation. Donald Brake noted: “The translation of the KJV was conducted according to controlling rules and principles established by Archbishop Bancroft” (Visual History of the KJB, p. 115). Brake added: “His fifteen rules for translation clearly reveal bias against the Puritans and inevitably led to a translation that favored the Church of England” (p. 116). Alister McGrath observed that Bancroft “was in a position to exercise considerable influence over the new Bible, by laying down rules of translation that would ensure that it would be sympathetic to the position and sensitivities of the established Church of England” (In the Beginning, p. 164). McGrath wrote: “The translators were instructed to follow strict ‘rules of translation,‘ drawn up by Bancroft and approved by James” (p. 173). David Teems referred to Bancroft as “the man James charged with organizing, policing, and managing the enterprise of translation” (Majestie, p. 163). In their preface, the KJV translators referred to Bancroft as the "chief overseer and task-master under his Majesty, to whom were not only we, but also our whole Church, much bound." In the preface of his 1659 book, Robert Gell, who had been chaplain of George Abbot (a KJV translator appointed archbishop after the death of Bancroft), asserted that those who set the translators to their work “limited them, (as some of them have much complained)” (An Essay, p. ix). James MacKnight referred to “the restraint they [the KJV translators] were laid under by those who employed them” (New Literal Translation, p. 9). Henry Craik also maintained that the KJV translators were “limited” by “the regulations of their royal patron” (Hints, p. 27). William Orme claimed: “The translators were embarrassed by the rules of their royal master—rules which were dictated by his prejudices, and his partiality for episcopacy, as much as by his learning” (Bibliotheca Biblica, p. 38).

    The third rule for the making of the KJV was that "the old ecclesiastical words to be kept; as the word church, not to be translated congregation, etc." After listing this third rule, Adam Nicolson commented: “Bancroft, and almost certainly the king, was not prepared to give any ground in the language of the translation to the Presbyterians” (God’s Secretaries, p. 75). David Daiches noted that the third rule was "directed against the Puritan tendency to abandon the traditional terms which had associations with Catholic ritual and is an interesting reflection of the essentially Anglican nature of A.V." (The KJV of the English Bible, p. 169). John Nordstrom asserted that the third rule “reveals Bancroft’s Anglicanism more than any other and shows that Bancroft wanted to guide the new revision back to a high-church position, taking away any congregational power” (Stained with Blood, p. 169).

    Two of the translation/revision committees met at Westminster, which was under direct authority of the king. John Nordstrom pointed out that two companies of translators met “at Westminster, the seat of royal authority” (Stained with Blood, p. 178). In his anniversary essay in the 1611 reprint edition by Oxford University Press in 2010, Gordon Campbell noted: “The reason for the choice of Westminster (as opposed to London, from which it was then separate) was that Westminster Abbey was a royal peculiar, which meant that it was exempt from any jurisdiction other than that of the monarch” (p. 2 of essay). The king also had some control or influence at Oxford and Cambridge since the rules specified that the “king’s professor in Hebrew or Greek in each university” be chairman of those committees. Gordon Campbell observed: “The king’s professors (now known as regius professors) at Oxford and Cambridge were appointed by the Crown (as they are now), so these four professors owed their jobs to the Crown, and could be relied upon to bear the king’s wishes in mind as they discharged their duties” (Ibid.).
    All your quotes are secon, third, hand info of what somebody rules thought, (Anthony Johnson) in 1730 book don't cut it, James McCnight don't cut it, Biblitochea, dont cut it


    • #62
      Originally posted by Truth7t7 View Post
      All your quotes are secon, third, hand info of what somebody rules thought, (Anthony Johnson) in 1730 book don't cut it, James McCnight don't cut it, Biblitochea, dont cut it
      In other words, English Bible history and how we got the word doesn't mean anything to you. God would not have you ignorant about such things. They are important.


      • #63
        Originally posted by Truth7t7 View Post
        All your quotes are secon, third, hand info of what somebody rules thought, (Anthony Johnson) in 1730 book don't cut it, James McCnight don't cut it, Biblitochea, dont cut it
        "The Sum and Substance of the Conference at Hampton Court" wasn't "secon" and third hand information.

        I mean seriously, get real with the facts.

        If you're going to take such an approach as this, then you need to reject the KJV all together. You do not have the exact copies of the words the translators of the KJV produced. All you have are second and third hand editions.


        • #64
          Originally posted by Truth7t7 View Post
          All your quotes are secon, third, hand info of what somebody rules thought, (Anthony Johnson) in 1730 book don't cut it, James McCnight don't cut it, Biblitochea, dont cut it
          What we are observing is the normal KJVO double standard. They can make a statement on the flimsiest “evidence “.. Nut those who support a counter argument, are required to supply original signed and notarized documentation


          • #65
            Originally posted by Truth7t7 View Post
            All your quotes are secon, third, hand info of what somebody rules thought, (Anthony Johnson) in 1730 book don't cut it, James McCnight don't cut it, Biblitochea, dont cut it
            Your assertion is simply not true. My quotes include first-hand information, including from one of the KJV translators. The information concerning the Hampton Court Conference is first-hand information from one of the people at the conference.

            You ignore and avoid the facts.


            • #66
              Originally posted by Truth7t7 View Post
              Do you find it a mystery that those nations that conquered the world, high seas, and established world colonies listed below were the?

              (French) Olivetan 1535 Bible

              (Spanish) Reina Valera Antigua 1569/1602 Bible

              (English) King James 1611 Bible

              (Dutch) Statenvertaling 1635 Bible

              (Italian) Diodati 1607 Bible

              It appears God was in favor of the "Byzantine" textual family to hit the high seas and brought to world colonies?

              All the Bibles mentioned above were from the "Byzantine" textual family, not the "Alexandrian" textual family that supports new bible versions?
              The entrance of God's Word gives light! We can see a stark contrast today in American politics between the wisdom of God bless Americans who fear God and honor the Bible and the foolishness of those whose political party sought to ban God from politics in 2012 and who exert far too much energy in attempting to erect unlawful walls of separation between God and man.
              I am not a NPB-Onlyist (No Perfect Bible Onlyist), nor a NA/UBS-Onlyist. Marke

              If this book be not infallible, where shall we find infallibility? We have given up the Pope, for he has blundered often and terribly; but we shall not set up instead of him a horde of little popelings fresh from college. C. H. Spurgeon

              For that Revised Version I have but little care as a general rule, holding it to be by no means an improvement upon our common Authorized Version. C.H. Spurgeon