Welcome to our forums...

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.


Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 12
  1. #1
    Fundamental Thinker
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    4,547

    Default KJV--Be reverent to kings

    Edwin Bissell commented: “Whatever else James I might tolerate he would not allow any weakening of the doctrine of the supremacy of kings. And no other version of the English Bible betrayed such definite leanings toward that tenet as the one made under his own direction” (Historic Origin, p. 78).

    The 1611 KJV’s contents chapter heading at Ecclesiastes 10 for verse 20 is “Men’s thoughts of kings ought to be reverend.“

    That comment was still found in a KJV edition printed at Cambridge in 1769 although it has one spelling change of “reverend” to “reverent.“ The same form of this comment as found in the 1769 Cambridge was still found in editions of the KJV printed at Cambridge in 1872 and 1887 and at Oxford in 1868, 1876, and 1885.

  2. #2
    Fundamental Thinker
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Toruń, Poland
    Posts
    1,424

    Default

    And did you ever see my cool 1976 Commemorative Edition Bible with all the pretty pictures of the Presidents? It says that Richard Nixon read the Bible daily as did Jimmy Carter. Shame I lost that great edition when I sold everything I had, but the clothes on my back and a trunk full of clothes, and headed off to Mexico to preach the gospel. Down in Mexico the Mexicans would like to show me their version with the Virgin of Guadalupe on the front page. When I got to Poland I found the Old Wujek Polish Bible (late 1500's) that had really neat wood cuts - the best one was with the woodcut of the Angel banishing Adam and Eve from the garden! I have it as my background on my laptop. Wish I could figure out how to send you a copy then you could paste it in your Bible along with grandma's wedding flower and all the fancy signatures of the reverent preachers you know. Unless you have something cooler than that in your version!
    In Jesus' Name,


    Brent Riggs
    www.preachinginpoland.com

    Do you have eternal life (Jn 3:15)? Have you been born again (Jn 3:1-8)? Please take this opportunity to give the reason of the hope that is in you (1Pt 3:15). If you fail to do so for whatever reason, I will have no compelling reason or need to respond to your post.

  3. #3
    Fundamental Thinker
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    4,704

    Default

    Well, I have some copies of versions that actually have ALL OF GOD'S WORD IN IT, IN MY LANGUAGE! How cool is that?
    "robycop3 - the avowed enemy of ALL man-made doctrines of worship!"

  4. #4
    Master of Fundamentalism
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    186

    Default

    Edwin Bissell commented: “Whatever else James I might tolerate he would not allow any weakening of the doctrine of the supremacy of kings. And no other version of the English Bible betrayed such definite leanings toward that tenet as the one made under his own direction” (Historic Origin, p. 78).
    *******
    Then he lied, because it was not under his own direction.
    He simply approved of what others wanted.
    It was not King James idea for a new Bible.
    If it was, then history would have quotes like this.

    If you read history, you will see that King James made several announcements to the publick for a new Bible, and headed all the committees overseeing every chapter verse and word to fruition.

    But that did not happen, did it Coverdale?
    So you put this quote from Edwin Bissel up for what reason?
    Because you believe him? He is your final authority after all. Right?
    Maybe you would do better to stick your fingers to your mouth and go Blurbbblllblblubllbblu.
    But it even gets more full of delusional desperate Jesuit military style slop.
    *******
    Now read carefully and see the slop flung at a blank wall.
    The 1611 KJV’s contents chapter heading at Ecclesiastes 10 for verse 20 is “Men’s thoughts of kings ought to be reverend.“
    That comment was still found in a KJV edition printed at Cambridge in 1769 although it has one spelling change of “reverend” to “reverent.“ The same form of this comment as found in the 1769 Cambridge was still found in editions of the KJV printed at Cambridge in 1872 and 1887 and at Oxford in 1868, 1876, and 1885.
    *******
    So, it is wrong to obey the Bible, Coverdale?
    Did you even care to type the words for which the heading was for?
    Of course not.
    You love to take things out of context, just like the Military Jesuits of old.
    Trying to make a point of King James here and grasping at straws.
    Let us look at the Bible TEXT!!!!! and see the REAL truth.
    *******
    Ecclesiastes 10:20
    Curfe not the king, no not in thy thought; and curfe not the rich in thy bedchamber: for a bird of the air fhall carry the voice, and that which hath wings fjall tell the matter.
    *******
    According to Coverdale, he can see evil in this heading for this verse because of what??
    Somehow he connects it directly to King James? O, right, King James was involved in every aspect of the Translation process. Right?
    *******
    The heading is this: A simple summation of one of the points in the verse.
    That is it.
    Next!
    *******
    Edwin was obviously cloudy in his judgment, and there you are with your Edwin Bissell flag.
    *******
    Birds of a feather flock together.
    Quacks like a duck...
    Acts like a Military Jesuit...
    *******
    PeterAV
    Every word of God is pure:

    Coverdale
    All of God's word is up for debate.

  5. #5
    Fundamental Thinker
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Wonderful Central Oklahoma
    Posts
    1,971

    Default

    Recall that the Proverbs are of three types:

    1. Accurate description of the way things have been
    2. Accurate descriptions of the way things are
    4. Accurate description of the way things aught to be
    3. Accurate description of the way things will be

    It is the way things are that if you curse the king in public, the king may call you to account.

    As a member of the Soverign State of Oklahoma
    a member of the United States of America
    I will honor
    NO KING BUT JESUS


    -

    All VALID English Language Bibles
    Collectively and Individually
    contain and are
    the Inerrant and Perfect
    Written Word of God
    preserved by Divine Appointment
    for the generation in which they are translated.

  6. #6
    Master of Fundamentalism
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    186

    Default 1611ED Rejects the Pure Word of God

    Quote Originally Posted by 1611ED View Post
    Recall that the Proverbs are of three types:

    1. Accurate description of the way things have been
    2. Accurate descriptions of the way things are
    4. Accurate description of the way things aught to be
    3. Accurate description of the way things will be

    It is the way things are that if you curse the king in public, the king may call you to account.

    As a member of the Soverign State of Oklahoma
    a member of the United States of America
    I will honor
    NO KING BUT JESUS
    *******
    WOW!!!
    Real stellar material there ED.
    I know Obama is an illegitimate president.
    1]Not born in US.
    2]Did not swear to uphold the constitution of the US. Especially when he did it the second time inside.
    *******
    Plus your own country of Oklahoma has given up its rights by allowing Obama and the rest to govern you.
    Plus God says to give honour to whom honour is due.
    The Romans pillaged many countries, like Israel; Yet Paul during these rough times tells them to give honour to those in authority.
    Why?
    Because God is in control.
    But I do see your frustration with the feds.
    I think I would be side by side with you on this one.

  7. #7
    Fundamental Thinker
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    4,547

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PeterAV View Post
    *******
    Then he lied, because it was not under his own direction.
    He simply approved of what others wanted.

    Are you unable to understand plain English? You make wild accusations claiming that accurate information is a "lie." Saying a translation was made under his own direction is not saying that he first suggested the idea of the making of a new translation.

    The fact that King James I made or at least approved the rules for the making of the translation show that it was made under his direction.

    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 rules for the translating were sent with a letter from King James I that indicated his approval of the rules.


    Furthermore, King James followed up on the rules by having Archbishop Richard Bancroft oversee the translation. 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). 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 book, Robert Gell, who had been chaplain of George Abbot, asserted that those who set the translators to their work “limited them, (as some of them have much complained)” (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).

  8. #8
    Fundamental Thinker
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Wonderful Central Oklahoma
    Posts
    1,971

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PeterAV View Post
    *******
    WOW!!!
    Real stellar material there ED.
    I know Obama is an illegitimate president.
    1]Not born in US.
    2]Did not swear to uphold the constitution of the US. Especially when he did it the second time inside.
    *******
    Plus your own country of Oklahoma has given up its rights by allowing Obama and the rest to govern you.
    Plus God says to give honour to whom honour is due.
    The Romans pillaged many countries, like Israel; Yet Paul during these rough times tells them to give honour to those in authority.
    Why?
    Because God is in control.
    But I do see your frustration with the feds.
    I think I would be side by side with you on this one.


    Obama is the best president I have right Now (He is my president, cause I'm a citizen of the USofA). But trust me, at the first note of the Last Trumpet (of the Church age - this present evil age -- I will renounce my USofA citizenship and I'm out of HERE :-) I'm an eternal citzen of a City (see Heb 11) and just a temporal citizen of the USofA.

    All I see Obama doing is that he is trying to let poor preacher students and other preaching personnel have the same Health Insurance that I have. Sure I pay 20% of my retirement * for Health Insurance but it pays virtually all hospital & doctor and over 80% of meds. GrandPa Ed -

    (I was payinng 15% for health before I retired and 20% direct tax and about 12% indirect taxes --Sorry seems like I was paying 47% of income in taxes of the things the Government provides.)

    All VALID English Language Bibles
    Collectively and Individually
    contain and are
    the Inerrant and Perfect
    Written Word of God
    preserved by Divine Appointment
    for the generation in which they are translated.

  9. #9
    Master of Fundamentalism
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    186

    Default

    The fact that King James I made or at least approved the rules for the making of the translation show that it was made under his direction.
    Exactly, but you avoided my point completely.
    My point was that this supposed direction did not include 'his personal direction' at every place and verse, such as the one under consideration. But this is what you have intimated by including and referring the name of King James I.

  10. #10
    Fundamental Thinker
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    4,547

    Default

    Edwin Bissell commented: “Whatever else James I might tolerate he would not allow any weakening of the doctrine of the supremacy of kings. And no other version of the English Bible betrayed such definite leanings toward that tenet as the one made under his own direction” (Historic Origin, p. 78).

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by PeterAV
    *******
    Then he lied, because it was not under his own direction.

    I noted in response to your incorrect claim: "The fact that King James I made or at least approved the rules for the making of the translation show that it was made under his direction."


    Quote Originally Posted by PeterAV View Post
    Exactly, but you avoided my point completely.
    My point was that this supposed direction did not include 'his personal direction' at every place and verse, such as the one under consideration. But this is what you have intimated by including and referring the name of King James I.
    In effect, you admit that your accusation that Edwin Bissell lied when he noted that the KJV was made under the direction of King James is false.

    Pointing out the fact that the KJV was made under the rules made or approved by King James does not imply or intimate that King James was concerned about "every place and verse."

    King James I was clearly interested in renderings that concerning his view of the divine right of kings and his view of church government.

 

 

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Page generated in 1,416,645,018.47869 seconds with 17 queries