tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post5874131089592133850..comments2023-12-22T08:29:29.230-08:00Comments on WHAT IS TRUTH: Was the King James Version the Standard for the English Speaking People for 300 Years?Kent Brandenburghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-90496090630870021582010-07-24T17:28:22.889-07:002010-07-24T17:28:22.889-07:00Oh, Daniel Mace's translation was not "ig...Oh, Daniel Mace's translation was not "ignored" because he was a Presbyterian (which makes no sense). And Kent covers some of the panning of the Mace text and translation attempt elsewhere, including the Twells disassembling. It is pretty bad to actually confuse Mace and Twells, which seems to be Erik's confusion. Although I would like to see him give more about the 1731 reference, what source he was using.<br /><br />Richard Bentley - (sp.)<br /><br />However, I would not call the Lowth comment a "blatant falsehood" since we do have a comment like the one in this reference:<br /><br />In 1778 Lowth referred to Seeker's valuable corrections of the English translation and critical remarks on the Hebrew text which 'will be of infinite service, whenever that necessary work, a New Translation, or a Revision of the present Translation of the Holy Scriptures, for die use of our Church, shall be undertaken'. <br />http://books.google.com/books?id=W1EH9mAWA0IC&pg=PA81 <br /><br />Shalom,<br />Steven AverySteven Averyhttp://www.heavenlywitnesses.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-18027279728185903602010-07-24T17:27:49.373-07:002010-07-24T17:27:49.373-07:00Hi Folks,
Paraphrases were always fine, (remember...Hi Folks,<br /><br />Paraphrases were always fine, (remember even Erasmus did a famous earlier paraphrase, with the heavenly witnesses included :) ) <br /><br />Richard Baxter was accused of libel against the church of Scotland in the Paraphrase. (England still had religious persecution.)<br /><br />http://www.answers.com/topic/richard-baxter<br />But his worst encounter was with the chief justice, Sir George Jeffreys, in May 1685. He had been committed to the King's Bench Prison on the charge of libelling the Church in his Paraphrase on the New Testament, and was tried before Jeffreys on this accusation. No authoritative report of the trial exists; if the partisan account on which tradition is based is accepted, Jeffreys was infuriated. Baxter was sentenced to pay 500 marks, to lie in prison till the money was paid, and to be bound to his good behaviour for seven years. Jeffreys is even said to have proposed he should be whipped behind a cart. Baxter was now seventy, and remained in prison for eighteen months, until the government, hoping to win his influence, remitted the fine and released him.<br /><br />The history given by Erik above is a bit of a laugh.<br /><br />Especially jumping to 1684 where he grossly misrepresents the Baxter situation -- and not even mentioning that the Parliament around 1650 was even commissioning a new revision of the Bible, an enterprise that would have involved John Owen, Henry Jessey (who worked on his own translation as well) and others. The attempt faltered and vanished into the historical void. Oops.<br /><br />Essentially the superb excellence of the KJB has kept it in good stead from attacks from often very conflicting, even opposite, angles. So it is hard to spend a lot of time on histories written quite so poorly as above.<br /><br />(continues)Steven Averyhttp://www.heavenlywitnesses.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-37016351819810675042010-07-24T17:24:52.888-07:002010-07-24T17:24:52.888-07:00Hi Folks,
Paraphrases were always fine, (remember...Hi Folks,<br /><br />Paraphrases were always fine, (remember even Erasmus did a famous ealrier paraphrase, with the heavenly witnesses included :) ) <br /><br />Richard Baxter was accused of libel against the church of Scotland in the Paraphrase. (England still had religious persectution.)<br /><br />http://www.answers.com/topic/richard-baxter<br />But his worst encounter was with the chief justice, Sir George Jeffreys, in May 1685. He had been committed to the King's Bench Prison on the charge of libelling the Church in his Paraphrase on the New Testament, and was tried before Jeffreys on this accusation. No authoritative report of the trial exists; if the partisan account on which tradition is based is accepted, Jeffreys was infuriated. Baxter was sentenced to pay 500 marks, to lie in prison till the money was paid, and to be bound to his good behaviour for seven years. Jeffreys is even said to have proposed he should be whipped behind a cart. Baxter was now seventy, and remained in prison for eighteen months, until the government, hoping to win his influence, remitted the fine and released him.<br /><br />The history given by Erik above is a bit of a laugh.<br /><br />Especially jumping to 1684 where he grossly misrepresents the Baxter situation -- and not even mentioning that the Parliament around 1650 was even commissioning a new revision of the Bible, an enterprise that would have involved John Owen, Henry Jessey (who worked on his own translation as well) and others. The attempt faltered and vanished into the historical void. Oops.<br /><br />Essentially the superb excellence of the KJB has kept it in good stead from attacks from often very conflicting, even opposite, angles. So it is hard to spend a lot of time on histories written quite so poorly as above.<br /><br />Oh, Daniel Mace's translation was not "ignored" because he was a Presbyterian (which makes no sense). And Kent covers some of the panning of the Mace text and translation attempt elsewhere, including the Twells disassembling. It is pretty bad to actually confuse Mace and Twells, which seems to be Erik's confusion. Although I would like to see him give more about the 1731 reference, what source he was using.<br /><br />Richard Bentley - (sp.)<br /><br />However, I would not call the Lowth comment a "blatant falsehood" since we do have a comment like the one in this reference:<br /><br />In 1778 Lowth referred to Seeker's valuable corrections of the English translation and critical remarks on the Hebrew text which 'will be of infinite service, whenever that necessary work, a New Translation, or a Revision of the present Translation of the Holy Scriptures, for die use of our Church, shall be undertaken'. <br />http://books.google.com/books?id=W1EH9mAWA0IC&pg=PA81 <br /><br />Shalom,<br />Steven AverySteven Averyhttp://www.heavenlywitnesses.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-21444584279604751242010-06-21T17:50:19.425-07:002010-06-21T17:50:19.425-07:00Hi Christian,
Thanks.Hi Christian,<br /><br />Thanks.Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-21115464515530056332010-06-17T13:59:07.575-07:002010-06-17T13:59:07.575-07:00Brother Brandenburg,
If insulting is banned, then...Brother Brandenburg,<br /><br />If insulting is banned, then you should start this thread almost clean. Five posts but only one interaction with the post; no scripture (which we all love)--only insults (against our brother)...not a good example of "alway with grace." And may I say not a good trend.<br /><br />Personally, I appreciate the work you did, but each of us aught to do our own checking...if time permits and we deem it profitable (1 Timothy 3:14) for its use. Inter-library loan is a good place to start. Only one problem...I did ILL for the Septuagent study, but now that I have the book I forgot what I wanted it for. :-)<br /><br />The comment about Richard Baxter was interesting...all my quick checking on his imprisonment said nothing of a paraphrase...must need to dig deeper.<br /><br />For His glory,<br />Christian MarkleChristianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03131539290436726669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-9752632674281506472010-06-17T11:03:33.207-07:002010-06-17T11:03:33.207-07:00JNTSKIP,
It's true I said that, and it's ...JNTSKIP,<br /><br />It's true I said that, and it's interesting that you are quoting what I said at your blog here. But I'm going to add something. I'm not going to publish every comment that has only the purpose of insulting. I'm not going to subject my readers to that. So I've added to what I did. I agree with you about what I said.<br /><br />It's not true that I refuse to interact with Erik in the comment section. He left two comments and neither of them were "interaction" with what I wrote. They just insulted. That's all.<br /><br />Your blog is operated by Bob Hayton. He should not be standing over anyone, anyone, as a judge for anything. I'm saying that based on his time here. And that relates to nothing that he presently believes or espouses. <br /><br />You and Erik really are two industrial sized pots confronting a kettle. If Erik wants to talk about the subject at hand, he's welcome, but something tells me that he might only want to keep insulting. I would understand that might be all that he's got going on this issue, but he doesn't get to do it here, nonetheless. And by the way, Erik can keep commenting here, if he doesn't want only to insult---a different policy on this blog than what you're accustomed to.Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-2737911387478015412010-06-12T13:38:22.526-07:002010-06-12T13:38:22.526-07:00KB,
Just a reminder that you told me "I don&#...KB,<br />Just a reminder that you told me "I don't delete comments unless there is foul language. People don't have the threat of getting banned, unless they use foul language. We've got a guy there right now, a ******, not even giving his name, that is being insulting, and he gets to stay."<br />I don't know what Erik said, but I know what you said. Sadly, you've shown your colors by refusing to interact with Erik in the comments section of the post where this came up, and by refusing to post his comments contrary to your stated policy of openness.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11580584143098881039noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-83008341069018362212010-06-12T04:36:18.218-07:002010-06-12T04:36:18.218-07:00Sooo, is this post a case in point for the "D...Sooo, is this post a case in point for the "Dodge" series, or does it stand on its own, or perhaps both.<br /><br />Thank you for digging through a lot of material to expose untruths.Billhttp://www.bhardecker.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-35629989619173414872010-06-11T18:23:35.008-07:002010-06-11T18:23:35.008-07:00Thanks Terry! I don't say that the KJV is wron...Thanks Terry! I don't say that the KJV is wrong anywhere. I think it is an accurate translation. I don't think that it conveys everything that the original language does, so the English should be explained in light of what God wrote in the original language.<br /><br />Readers,<br /><br />I got a comment from Erik, the one referred to in this post. I haven't posted it yet and probably won't, because it is about 7/8 going after me, i.e., personal shots. Usually I let the personal shots go here, but he also said that he doesn't want me to answer what he wrote, that is, interact with what I've written here. He doesn't want me to spend any time answering his comments. He also says he stands by his view.<br /><br />I welcome anyone to look at the two sources that I quoted from in this post as it relates to whether they have proven that Christians wanted a different Bible than the KJV. <br /><br />Update to this comment: Erik wrote another comment I haven't posted. He's welcome to come and interact with this actual piece, but now he's just angry that I wouldn't post his personal shots at me, that I don't have the "fortitude" to do that. :-)Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-19168940091610302332010-06-10T17:32:54.685-07:002010-06-10T17:32:54.685-07:00Bro Kent,
I appreciate the work you do in defendi...Bro Kent,<br /><br />I appreciate the work you do in defending the KJV. It is always a help to me. I think you and I disagree slightly in some areas, in that I would not correct the KJV. This would not be because I believe in double inspiration. I simply believe at the time the KJV was translated, the Lord had assembled some amazing men to do the job. I personally believe their qualifications are far and above those Greek scholars of our day. Therefore I cannot see myself over turning what at least 49 men agreed upon as a correct translation of word/words, based on one or two opinions of today, or what Thayer or Robertson say. I hope that made sense. (After re-reading this I think I went on a rabbit trail, away from the main point of your article. Sorry.) <br /><br />Another point about the comment the young "historian" made, is I think too often we lose sight of that fact that God is in control, especially when it comes to His Word! One problem many of those who constantly attack the TR/KJV is lack of faith in God and his promises. This is one point you frequently bring to light.<br /><br />Thanks again for your work!Terry McGovernhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07785714020219737129noreply@blogger.com