King James Translators

  • Thread starter Thread starter JED8643
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

JED8643

Guest
Hey guys,

I know someone who is a King James only Bible Christian. I am trying to find historical and factual information on the Anglican Church around the time the KJ bible was translated. I am interested in the doctrine of the Anglican Church at that time. From what I understand, King James was trying to placate the Puritans in England while maintaining the influence of the high Anglican Church.

Did the KJ translators believe in infant Baptism, the sacraments and prayer to saints? If not, were they already being influenced by puritan beliefs? (some KJ only websites imply the translators were very fundamental Christians)

If the translators were Anglican and thus very “Catholic” in their doctrinal beliefs, then how does a modern day KJ only Baptist reconcile these issues. The doctrine these men held is so far from what an independent Baptist or evangelical would believe, yet the bible they translated is held to such high esteem.

I think the KJ only issue is a huge weakness for this person who is very outspoken in his dislike for the Catholic Church. (I have a 1611 version with the Apocrypha, books he thinks the CC added at Trent)

Anyway, is this line of reasoning something that could work to enlighten this person, or would it just backfire?
 
JED8643 said:
Hey guys,

I know someone who is a King James only Bible Christian. I am trying to find historical and factual information on the Anglican Church around the time the KJ bible was translated. I am interested in the doctrine of the Anglican Church at that time. From what I understand, King James was trying to placate the Puritans in England while maintaining the influence of the high Anglican Church.

Did the KJ translators believe in infant Baptism, the sacraments and prayer to saints? If not, were they already being influenced by puritan beliefs? (some KJ only websites imply the translators were very fundamental Christians)

If the translators were Anglican and thus very “Catholic” in their doctrinal beliefs, then how does a modern day KJ only Baptist reconcile these issues. The doctrine these men held is so far from what an independent Baptist or evangelical would believe, yet the bible they translated is held to such high esteem.

I think the KJ only issue is a huge weakness for this person who is very outspoken in his dislike for the Catholic Church. (I have a 1611 version with the Apocrypha, books he thinks the CC added at Trent)

Anyway, is this line of reasoning something that could work to enlighten this person, or would it just backfire?
Click to expand...
I don’t think that every translator who translated the King James was Anglican. It is no secret that King James didn’t agree with the Puritans and the Geneva Bible. If you look at the KJV and the Douay-Rheims, they are similar. Anglicans are similar to Catholics in many ways but yet differ in many ways to. The KJV is about as Catholic as you can get without being Catholic. Obviously it does have some Protestant doctrines in it. I am not sure what beef King James had against the Puritans, but he made a motive to displace the Geneva Bible because he didn’t like it. I am sure there many sites that you can research about the Church of England. The KJV wasn’t the first English translation to do away with the 7 books. The canon that was followed for many years stems back to 382 with Pope Damasus I when he asked St. Jerome to translate the Bible. This history of the canon is found in several thread within the last month
 
We must also remember that there was a special section for the Apocrypha in it. Were they scattered in with the ‘regular’ books in the previous translations? The non Catholic ones, anyway.
As a matter of fact King James I also made it illegal for anyone to own a Bible without them.
So, while not exactly like a Catholic edition, it would have been very similar.
You might also bring up how much it has been changed from the original edition, grammer wise. Show him your 1611 edition and compare it with a modern one.
 
The King James Bible is (in my humble opinion) perhaps the most eloquent and beautiful of all the english translations of the Bible. The Douay-Rheims Challonor translation is beautiful too because of its simularity. I own copy of the 1611 edition of the KJV, it’s very beautiful and includes the deuterocanon (including I and II Esdras and the Prayer of Manasses that the Catholics don’t have.).
 
Crimson_Seraph said:
The King James Bible is (in my humble opinion) perhaps the most eloquent and beautiful of all the english translations of the Bible. The Douay-Rheims Challonor translation is beautiful too because of its simularity. I own copy of the 1611 edition of the KJV, it’s very beautiful and includes the deuterocanon (including I and II Esdras and the Prayer of Manasses that the Catholics don’t have.).
Click to expand...
I and II Esdras is III and IV Esdras and the Prayer of Manasses are included with the Latin Vulgate Clementine Edition. They were included in the earlier Douay-Rheims as well
 
Crimson_Seraph said:
The King James Bible is (in my humble opinion) perhaps the most eloquent and beautiful of all the english translations of the Bible. The Douay-Rheims Challonor translation is beautiful too because of its simularity. I own copy of the 1611 edition of the KJV, it’s very beautiful and includes the deuterocanon (including I and II Esdras and the Prayer of Manasses that the Catholics don’t have.).
Click to expand...
remember the Douay-Rheims was released before the KJV as well. The Rheims NT in 1582 and Douay OT in 1609 and the Complete Bible in 1610
 
Deconi said:
What (Bible version) did the KJV translators, translate?

:cool:
Click to expand...
The KJV used the Bishops Bible as there base text. They also used the Tyndale NT, Wycliffe, Geneva which King James protested, the Great Bible, Latin Vulgate, Rheims NT of 1582 as well as the Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic texts. Most notably the Textus Receptus
 
Thanks for the responses so far,

I do understand where the bible came from and how it got put together. I guess what I’m trying to get at is that some Christians put this translation up to such high esteem that any other version isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on. I know many people who believe the KJV is the only “true” bible version.

I suppose what I’m wondering is, if the KJ translators were predominately Anglican, they believed doctrine very far removed from the doctrine of these “KJ only” folks who make them out to be the most scholarly men on the planet. For example, infant baptism.

The person I know is an independent Baptist and a “KJ only” believer. He is against infant baptism. I don’t think he has ever thought about the fact that the men who translated the King James Version of the bible most likely believed in infant baptism.

I guess it would be like St. Jerome who translated the bible into Latin, believing in heretical “Gnostic” doctrine. Wouldn’t it make you wonder how a person like St Jerome who studied language and scripture all his life, believing doctrine not in line with the Catholic faith?

I guess that’s my line of reasoning. I’m trying to find out if this line of reasoning could work on a very fundamentalist Baptist who believes “if it ain’t the King James, it ain’t the bible”.

Thanks
 
So is he saying the original Hebrew and Greek texts are not as good as a translation? The ones that Christ himself would have read are not as good as a translation? Bring this up.
Moreso, yes, I would say a great many of them were certainly Anglican, including James himself.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top