RE: [Covenanted Reformation] Re: Authorized Version & KJV-only Extremism
MessageQuestion... Why is the KJV called the Authorized Version?My answer is because a King had a bias to God's Word the Geneva Bible because it threatened his kingship besides the Catholics wanted the Geneva Bible to be replaced also. Plus the Geneva Bible was against Freemasons and secret fraternities which have proven throughout history to be worshiping Lucifer and not the God of the Bible.SteveHome Page1599 Geneva Bible OnlineYahoo Group Owner-----Original Message-----
From: Thomas Britton [mailto:bander1643@...]
Sent: Saturday, September 06, 2003 7:20 PM
Subject: [Covenanted Reformation] Re: Authorized Version & KJV-only Extremism
The Geneva Bible def. has its merits, merits that the modern versions do not.
(E.g., compare any modern version with the Authorized Version on Genesis 2:20
And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him. A.V.
But for Adam  no suitable helper was found. NIV
But for Adam there was not found a helper comparable to him. New "King James".
The NKJV follows the NIV not the Authorized version.)
Not really wanting to start a faithful translation vs. unfaithful translation debate. I was interested in the question of using Webster's or the Geneva Bible within the context of covenanted uniformity.
Hope this clarifies,
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
I'd suggest you try using the New King James Version. Although I
personally think that it is an inferior translation in some ways,
largely because modern English is ill-suited to a translation from
antiquity, it has many advantages in comprehension for your average
--- In email@example.com, "Thomas Britton"
> I am curious about what any of you think about Noah Webster'sPreface
> to his 1833 updating of the Authorized version. Keep in mind thatand
> Noah was reformed, calvinistic & Independent/Congregtionalist.
> Among some of his points:
> 1. "In the present version, the language is, in general, correct
> perspicuous; the genuine popular English of Saxon origin;peculiarly
> adapted to the subjects; and in many passages, uniting sublimitywith
> beautiful simplicity. In my view, the general style of the versionfallen
> ought not to be altered."
> 2."[I]n the lapse of two or three centuries, changes have taken
> place, which, in particular passages, impair the beauty; in others,
> obscure the sense, of the original languages. Some words have
> into disuse; and the signification of others, in current popularuse,
> is not the same now as it was when they were introduced into theand
> version. The effect of these changes, is, that some words are not
> understood by common readers, who have no access to commentaries,
> who will always compose a great proportion of readers; while otherfalse
> words, being now used in a sense different from that which they had
> when the translation was made, present a wrong signification or
> ideas. Whenever words are understood in a sense different from thatdelicacy
> which they had when introduced, and different from that of the
> original languages, they do not present to the reader the `Word of
> God'. This circumstance is very important, even in things not the
> most essential; and in essential points, mistakes may be very
> injurious...In my own view of this subject, a version of the
> scriptures for popular use, should consist of words expressing the
> sense which is most common, in popular usage, so that the `first
> ideas' suggested to the reader should be the true meaning of such
> words, according to the original languages. That many words in the
> present version, fail to do this, is certain."
> 3. "There are ... many words and phrases, very offensive to
> and even to decency. In the opinion of all persons with whom I havecompany
> conversed on this subject, such words and phrases ought not to be
> retained in the version. Language which cannot be uttered in
> without a violation of decorum, or the rules of good breeding,hands
> exposes the scriptures to the scoffs of unbelievers, impairs their
> authority, and multiplies or confirms the enemies of our holy
> 4."There are a few errors in the A.V which "are admitted on all
> to be obvious;" which he has corrected. HOWEVER, "To avoid givingmade
> offense to any denomination of Christians, I have not knowingly
> any alteration in the passages of the present version, on which theas
> different denominations rely for the support of their peculiar
> tenets." So what good is THAT? Probably a good thing there weren't
> Mormons around at the time :-)The A.V is chock full of errors that
> support the "peculiar tenets" of the so-called Episopalians, and I
> a Presbyterian find THAT offensive :-) (I know, I know, "who caresif
> the Presbys are offended." :p~~~]to
> 3. it is very important that all denominations of Christians should
> use the same version, that in all public discourses, treatises &
> controversies, the passages cited as authorities should be uniform.
> Anyway, I'm not chucking out my A.V., but I would like to know how
> get a better sense of it in a lawful way without exposing myself &my
> family to grave error.
> Your thoughts are appreciated,