Hi Folks,

Very simple.

Rick Norris in his published Richard Bancroft article asserts:

"the finished work of the KJV translators did not satisfy Bancroft.
This proud Archbishop had to make some changes in the translation before it was even published."

The obvious question ... supply:

The first historical claim that Richard Bancroft acted independently after the "finished work".

Norris response.
Attempted diversion and non-answers.

What does he have to hide ?
Why can he not answer a simple factual question about his own published historical assertion ?
After all, he posted the material on his own account.

The last five or so times Rick tried not to answer are at the thread:

Is there valid evidence of Episcopal bias in the KJV?
http://www.fundamentalforums.com/bib...the-kjv-6.html

If you read that thread you will note that Richard Bancroft died in 1610 and he may not even have been alive at the time of the "finished work" that he is claimed by Rick Norris to have been changed before it got to the printer. Thus the historical documentation of the first historical reference to this "post-finish" interception is clearly quite important in weighing the accuracy and veracity of the Norris account.

And as long as Rick Norris refuses to answer the simple question of the earliest historical reference -- and yet keeps the accusation in his published material without change or correction -- it is clear that Rick Norris can have no credibility as an historical writer.

Conjectural fabrications and history are oil and water.

Far worse though if there is only stonewalling and diversion rather than a sincere attempt to deal with the issue of historical documentation.

Shalom,
Steven

=======================

Added 4/15/2010 from post #34.
(You will see that in this thread Rick tries to divert the discussion to a whole wide range of issues that are not part of the thread OP. Those issues are discussed elsewhere.)

TWO LONG THREADS WHERE ALL WIDE-RANGING KJB "ALTERATION" MATERIAL IS DISCUSSED

Here are the two major threads where all this other material is discussed:

KJV translator reported alterations in translators' text
http://finalauthority48270.yuku.com/topic/7114?page=1

Note that this is seven pages, in 2008, and in 2009 there is a lot of discussion in this 8-page thread.

Acts 19:37 translators' rendering vs Bancroft's alteration
http://www.fundamentalforums.com/bib...lteration.html

A lot of material about the overall issues. It would take a while to summarize and I suggest, if there are additional points to make on those two thread, continuing discussion on the Acts 19:37 thread or starting a new thread. Where one could go over the verses, the claims, the rumours, the attempt to make a new translation, etc.

Incidentally, on such a general thread, I would be very happy to give the links to threads and discussions about each and every verse that is discussed.

=======================

It is amazing to see a KJV-only poster boldly and arrogantly calling attention to his own belligerent, fabricated, and unsupported accusations and smear tactics.

The valid documented evidence from sources in the 1600's, from standard English histories of the English Bibles, and other books has been presented in more than one thread. The reliability of information provided in the 1600's by Thomas Hill and Henry Jessey [supported by their known godly character and access to first-hand sources] is clearly more trustworthy than the accusations of those who boldly advocate their fabricated, man-made, modern KJV-only speculations, conjectures, and assumptions as though they were supposedly "facts" or in some cases as though they were supposedly stated in the Scriptures.

It was also clearly noted in another thread that the important matter is the issue of whether or not there is evidence of Episcopal bias in the 1611 edition of the KJV. The matter of who was responsible for such renderings is minor. Evidently, the evidence for episcopal bias was so clear and strong that the only KJV-only answer is smear tactics and unproven accusations.



As another poster commented in response to another thread you started, why would anyone answer the invalid questions of someone who repeatedly misrepresents and distorts documented evidence? Why do KJV-only posters hide behind their smear tactics, misrepresentations, and false accusations?

Hi Folks,

No answer from Rick, except the Norris Bot.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coverdale arrogantly calling attention to his own belligerent, fabricated, and unsupported accusations and smear tactics.

The question remains:

Rick Norris:
"the finished work of the KJV translators did not satisfy Bancroft.
This proud Archbishop had to make some changes in the translation before it was even published."

The obvious question ... supply:

The first historical claim that Richard Bancroft acted independently after the "finished work".

Notice how Rick tries to talk about 1600s reference, but offers no reference from the 1600s that supports the claim that:

Richard Bancroft acted independently after the "finished work".

Rick is trying hard to evade the simple question above.
How many more diversion and evasion and Norris Bot attempts shall we see on the thread ?

All that .. rather than simply supply a one-sentence, accurate historical answer.

Shalom,
Steven

Actually, your parents should disconnect your internet connection. You are taking Google snippets and unjustly accusing people... When this is brought to your attention, you simply ignore it...

Tell us Avery why you prefer to accuse conservative Bible believers simply because they have education?

__________________
Once the KJVO diminishes the idea of purity to simply "variant-free" he no longer views the Bible is God's Word, believes it is God's Word nor behaves as if he has the very Words of God. Sunday School Lessons

In his 1648 sermon, Thomas Hill (c1602-1653), a member of the Westminster Assembly, stated: “I have it from certain hands, such as lived in those times, that when the Bible had been translated by the translators appointed, the New Testament was looked over by some of the great Prelates, (men I could name some of their persons) to bring it to speak prelatical language, and they did alter …fourteen places in the New Testament to make them speak the language of the Church of England” (Six Sermons, p. 24; see also Eadie, English Bible, II, p. 272). Thomas Smith noted that Thomas Hill was “much distinguished for his humility and purity of life,” and he described him as “an excellent and useful preacher of great learning and moderation” (Select Memoirs, p. 554). Samuel Clark observed that Hill “was sound in the faith, orthodox in his judgment” (Lives, p. 90). Thomas Hill would have known KJV translator Laurence Chaderton (1536 or 7-1640), who was Master of Emmanuel, when Hill received his B. A. from Emmanuel. Hill could have had contact with other KJV translators in his years at Cambridge. For example, KJV translator Thomas Harrison (1555-1631) was vice-prefect of Trinity College at Cambridge the last twenty years of his life so that Hill could have met him or at least could have had access to his books and papers. KJV translator Samuel Ward was master of Sidney-Sussex College at Cambridge a number of years so that Hill could have met him. KJV translator John Richardson died at Cambridge and was buried in Trinity College chapel. The time before 1638 when two KJV translators were among those editing the KJV for the 1638 Cambridge edition would have been another opportunity for Thomas Hill to have had firsthand contact with translators. In addition, Thomas Hill had access to other primary sources at Cambridge, including the Lambeth Library with the papers of Archbishop Richard Bancroft. Therefore, it can be validly concluded that Thomas Hill had access to enough primary sources to know whether or not the information in his sermon was reliable. Along with Hill’s 1648 sermon, there are state papers from 1652-1653 that cite his sermon and that refer to the testimony of other preachers.

The Calender of State Papers, Domestic Series, 1652-1653 as edited by Mary Green noted: “Statement that Dr. Hill declared in his sermon, and has since published, that when the Bible had been translated by the translators appointed, the New Testament was looked over by some prelates he could name, to bring it to speak prelatical language, and that he was informed by a great observer, that in 14 places, whereof he instanced five or six, it was corrupted by them. The like testimony was given by some other ancient and godly preachers who lived in those times, and some appearance hereof may yet be seen in a part of that very copy of those translations” (p. 73). John Eadie pointed out that the report of these 14 changes became part of the preamble of a bill in Parliament around 1657 (English Bible, II, p. 272). Eadie cited that preamble as noting that “the like testimony of these prelates” making those changes was “given by some other ancient and godly preachers also, who lived in those times” (Ibid.). Eadie also reported the preamble affirmed that “some appearance hereof may yet be seen in part of that very copy of these translators” (Ibid.). That important evidence asserts that some who examined the copy of the text prepared by the KJV translators for the printers saw evidence of the changes made by a prelate or prelates in that copy before it was lost or destroyed [perhaps around 1660 in the London fire].

Henry Jessey was at Cambridge several years in the 1620’s where he could have had firsthand contact with some of the KJV translators that were there during that time. John Lewis noted that Jessey was "one well skilled in the Hebrew, Chaldee, Syriac, and Greek tongues" (Complete History, p. 355). The reference work Dictionary of National Biography noted that “his memory for scripture was so minute and accurate that he was termed a living concordance” (Vol. X, p. 808). James Granger referred to Jessey as “an eminent puritan divine” (Biographical History, p. 413). Daniel Neal wrote: “The original languages of the Old And New Testament were as familiar to him [Jessey] as his mother tongue” (History of the Puritans, II, p. 254). John Christian stated that Jessey "was one of the most noted men of his times" (History of the Baptists, I, p. 271). Cathcart’s Baptist Encyclopaedia noted that “his character was marked by unselfishness and an intense love for the truth and its Divine Author” (p. 600). Benjamin Evans stated that “John Bunyan calls him ‘honest and holy Mr. Jessey’” (Early English Baptists, II, p. 150 footnote).

In his 1671 book, Edward Whiston wrote: “Mention might be made of some unhandsome dealing, not in the translators, but in a great prelate of that time, the chief supervisor of the work, who, as the Reverend Doctor Hill declared in a great and honourable Assembly, would have it speak the prelatical language, and to that end altered it in 14 places” (Life and Death of Henry Jessey, p. 49).

In 1739, John Lewis referred to an essay towards an amendment of this last translation of the Bible “said to have been drawn up” by Henry Jessey (Complete History, p. 355). In his 1845 book, Baptist Christopher Anderson also referred to an essay for the amendment of the last translation by Henry Jessey, and Anderson quoted Jessey as writing in that essay that “Dr. Hill declared in open assembly that Bancroft ‘would needs have the version speak prelatic language; and to that end altered it in fourteen several places;’ and that Dr. Miles Smith complained of the Bishops’ alterations” (Annals of the English Bible, Vol. II, p. 378). White commented that Jessey “apparently produced a paper arguing the need for a new translation” (Knox, Reformation, p. 141). This 1600’s essay or paper may have been an unprinted manuscript since no printed book written by Jessey with a title like that is known. This 1600's essay seems to have been used by Edward Whiston in his 1671 book about the life of Jessey.

In 1727, Edmund Calamy (1671-1732) noted that Henry Jessey “tells us that Dr. Hill declared in a great assembly, that a great Prelate, viz. Bancroft, who was a supervisor of it, would needs have it speak the prelatical language; and to that end altered it in fourteen several places. And Dr. Smith, who was one of the translators and the writer of the preface, (and who was afterwards Bishop of Glouchester,) complained to a minister of that county, of the Archbishop’s alterations: But says he, he is so potent, that there is no contradicting him” (A Continuation, I, p. 47). In 1808, Walter Wilson affirmed that Miles Smith “complained of the Archbishop’s unwarrantable alterations” (History, I, p. 44 note M). In 1839, Benjamin Hanbury maintained that “Bancroft, the supervisor of James’s translation, altered fourteen places to make it speak the language of prelacy” (Historical Memorials, I, p. 2). In his 1853 book, Alexander McClure also referred to Miles Smith's complaint about the Archbishop's alterations: "It is said that Bancroft altered fourteen places, so as to make them speak in phrase to suit him" (KJV Translators Revived, p. 220). Benson Bobrick confirmed that "Smith afterward complained that Bancroft made fourteen changes on his own account" (Wide as the Waters, p. 248). In 1671, Edward Whiston commented: “Indeed those and such other alterations were not only against the minds of the translators, but of the Bishop of Gloucester [Miles Smith], who was joined with the other as a Supervisor, and complained of it to a friend, a minister of that county, but he is so potent, said he, that there is no contradicting him” (Life, p. 50). Joseph Fletcher noted that “the Bishop of Gloucester excused himself for submitting to this tampering with the sacred text, by saying, ‘but he is so potent, there is no contradicting him’” (History, III, p. 39).

Olga Opfell also reported: "In the end Smith complained that Bishop Bancroft had introduced 14 more changes" (KJB Translators, p. 106). Opfell concluded that “as some translators had attested, he [Bancroft] had poked his nose into the text often enough to assure himself that no indignity had been done to bishops” (p. 118). Conant asserted that Bancroft "was publicly charged with having altered the version [KJV] in fourteen places" (The English Bible, p. 440). John McClintock and James Strong also wrote that Bancroft "is said to have made some alterations in the version [KJV]" (Cyclopaedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, I, p. 560). Josiah Penniman observed that “it is said that Bancroft, Bishop of London, insisted on fourteen alterations” (Book about the English Bible, p. 393). Edwin Bissell wrote: “And ‘my Lord of London,‘ who is probably the one referred in the Preface as the chief overseer of the work, was publicly charged at the time, with having altered the version on his own sole authority in fourteen places, the rendering of 1 Peter 2:13, ‘to the king as supreme,‘ being instanced as one of them” (Historic Origin, p. 78). Alister McGrath asserted that Bancroft “had reserved for himself the privilege of making revisions to what hitherto thought of as the final draft” (In the Beginning, p. 178). He also referred to Smith’s complaint “that Bancroft had introduced fourteen changes in the final text without any consultation” (p. 188). In the introductory articles found in Hendrickson’s reprint of the 1611, Alfred Pollard maintained that “another Bishop, Bancroft of London, is said to have insisted on fourteen alterations” (p. 42). Even Laurence Vance, a KJV-only author, acknowledged that Bancroft “is to said to have made fourteen changes” (King James, His Bible, p. 52). Henry Fox asserted: “Again and again were renderings upon which the translators had agreed altered by him [Bancroft] to suit his own views” (On the Revision, p. 7). Gustavus Paine maintained that Miles Smith, final editor of the KJV with Thomas Bilson, “protested that after Bilson and he had finished their editing, Bishop Bancroft made fourteen more changes.” He gave as an example Bancroft's insistence on using "the glorious word bishopric even for Judas in Acts 1:20" (Men Behind the KJV, p. 128). Paine added: “The fact that Smith was the one to protest Bancroft’s amendments suggests that he stood against both Bilson and Bancroft in such matters as the importance of bishoprics” (Ibid.). Edward Whiston asserted that “many of those in King James’ time (had they been as well conscientious in point of fidelity and godliness, as they were furnished with abilities, they) would not have moulded it to their own Episcopal notion rendering episkope, (the office of oversight) by the term Bishoprick Acts 1:20 as they do in 14 places more” (Life, p. 44).

Perhaps to the biased KJV-only mind-set, documented evidence from many sources must be boldly declared to be inferior to their own unsupported KJV-only fabricated speculations, conjectures, assumptions, opinions, and accusations.

Since they are unable to defend their KJV-only theory from the Scriptures, do KJV-only posters rationalize their own assumptions by attempting to attack the character of other believers?

Hi Folks,

All of the above are discussed on other threads, which I will be happy to point readers to.
However on this thread there is simply one question to answer, as in the OP.

Rick Norris:
"the finished work of the KJV translators did not satisfy Bancroft.
This proud Archbishop had to make some changes in the translation before it was even published."

The obvious question ... supply:

The first historical claim that Richard Bancroft acted independently after the "finished work".

You can first even supply historical documented proof that Richard Bancroft was alive at the time the "finished work" was sent to the printer.

Rick, is your answer to the question :
the 1959 book by Gustavis Paine !

ie. .. Almost 350 years after the supposed event.
A book that gives no source for the assertion, and an assertion that you have not found in a single historian before 1959.
Or do you have anybody earlier.

Earliest account is:
____________________________________

( Readers might get a noting that this is the same Rick Norris who will not even accept the Synod of Dort report of 1618 as a valid historical account ! )

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Your typical response to valid documented evidence is misrepresentation and false accusation. I had provided all this documented evidence in other threads, which makes your accusations and arrogrant smear tactics even more ridiculous. Perhaps you do not even carefully and completely read the evidence to which you respond just as you do not read the posts of several posters at this forum to which you blindly respond. Did you really discuss all this valid evidence or attempt to dismiss it with your speculations, assumptions, or conjectures?

Hi Folks,

When Norris wants to not answer a simple question, he puts the Bot in overtime mode !

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coverdale misrepresentation and false accusation ... makes your accusations and arrogrant smear tactics ...blindly respond. speculations, assumptions, or conjectures?

The question is very simple. You gave a ton of stuff on different issues, and nobody cares about other assertions on this thread (as indicated, other issues are discussed on other threads) and it is your responsibility to answer the simple and direct question directly about your own historical assertion. Clearly, you can answer, unless your purpose is simply to deceive.

This thread is simply about one assertion only.

Rick Norris:
"the finished work of the KJV translators did not satisfy Bancroft.
This proud Archbishop had to make some changes in the translation before it was even published."

The obvious question ... supply:

The first historical claim that Richard Bancroft acted independently after the "finished work".

Is it Gustavis Paine, 1959 ?
Or anybody earlier.

Simple question, Rick .. try to answer simply to point. If you want to demonstrate that Richard Bancroft was actually definitely alive at the time of the "finished work" that would be at least related to the question. If you want to explain why you do not consider the Synod of Dort report, which also discussed the finishing touches, as a valid historical document, that is slightly related. Or maybe you will agree that the report is a valid historical document, since it is 340 years earlier than Gustavis Paine, and a well respected King James Bible translator attended the Synod.

However the only real question here is simple:

The first historical claim that Richard Bancroft acted independently after the "finished work".

Again, a one sentence answer is surely appropriate for such as a simple, factual question.
First report: _______________________________________________

Shalom,
Steven Avery