Replies

Now you begin to agree with what I said. I've understood Acts 19 and the Greek use of ekklesia for a long, long time. I myself try to avoid the use of the word "church" because of its proneness to carry an unintended sense that is not present as it is meant to confer in the KJV context. I use the word "assembly" or "meeting" whenever possible in referring to the local churches of which I've been a constituent.

Another word fraught with misunderstanding doctrinally is "believer" which does not discern whether the person in view is regenerated or merely in agreement with Christian principles but not wholly committed to Jesus as Lord and Sole Owner of him, body, soul, and spirit.

Regarding James Stuart's influence on bending the translation to fit his preferences, I would be gratified if you could supply a verifiable citation of the instances regarding "church" and "bishop" that back you up. and the text thereof, especially if it appears on line.

In fact, I very much doubt that the translators could or would have been influenced by James, to lay aside their integrity individually or as members of the centers of knowledge. This was a time when people, even peasants, gave up their lives in flames for their beliefs.

At this point, I don't feel that I can rest on your opinion alone; and I always attempt to provide backup for mine.

Don't forget that the KJV translators (and there were many in the consortium) were generally more highly accomplished than most of the authors of today's versions, and that is a matter of record: Here are just a couple of examples that typify what I have said about them:

John Rainolds (click here)

Lawrence Chaderton (click here)

If The Stuart was to try to influence one of these men of high integrity, he would have had to influence them all, because they stood together on their consensus that the goal was to make that which was already good just a bit better, a Bible fit for adoption as authorized for use throughout the whole British Commonwealth; the official supreme basis for English integrity, not just a nice study Bible to have around when it agreed with one's own opinion as to which was best.

What you are dealing with here is a whole bevy of such learned men, and their national product governing the conduct of the official religion, no matter who was king or queen.

I do not think you do them justice in your tale of their corruptibility.

INSTRUCTIONS TO THE TRANSLATORS.

The ordinary Bible read in the Church, commonly called the Bishops’ Bible, to be followed, and as little altered as the original will permit.

The names of the prophets and the holy writers, with the other names in the text, to be retained, as near as may be, accordingly as they are vulgarly used.

The old ecclesiastical words to be kept, as the word church, not to be translated congregation.

When any word hath divers significations, that to be kept which hath been most commonly used by the most eminent fathers, being agreeable to the propriety of the place and the analogies of faith.

http://www.bible-researcher.com/kjvhist.html

So....keep the “old ecclesiastical words”. Sir Thomas More had written a lengthy treatise attacking Tyndale for translating ecclesiastical words in an honest fashion, with examples - so the translators all knew what King James meant.

Consider: http://www.archive.org/stream/tyndalesanswer00tynduoft/tyndalesanswer00tynduoft_djvu.txt

And if in doubt, they were to err on the side of church fathers instead of best translation.

FWIW, I own several KJV bibles and choose to use them sometimes. But I’m under no illusion that it is superior to modern translations. It is hampered more by archaic language “Thou Shall not kill” than it is by politics...but politics DID play a role in how it was translated.