When I was a young "Primitive Baptist" minister there began a campaign by some to change their church's articles of faith to say that only the King James Version of the Bible was scripture. One of the foremost leaders in this campaign was Elder Sonny Pyles who was a friend of my father and me. Father did not believe that the King James Bible was the only Bible and believed as I do that other English translations may be used and that some of them are better than the KJV. We believed that the KJV had some texts that were badly translated.
Recently while reading through the editorial writings of Elder C.H. Cayce in his paper "The Primitive Baptist" I noticed what this highly esteemed Hardshell apologist wrote about the KJV. In the February 22, 1916 issue of his paper Cayce wrote (emphasis mine):
"Brother J. J. Beck, of Sandy River, Va., writes as follows: How and in what manner were the translators (of the King James Version) chosen?
It was published in 1611; and a number of years elapsed before its intrinsic superiority and merits drove all other English translations out of the field Taken as a whole, it is the best and most truly English version. Couched in noble language, it abounds in felicities. It is musical, dramatic, and even tragical. It is, in turn, pathetic and sublime, and has, withal, a directness and force which commend it to all classes and conditions of men. But it is far from perfect; and wherein, in the opinion of many of its most ardent admirers, it should be made to conform more thoroughly and consistently with the original Scriptures remains to be briefly indicated under the following heads, etc."
I agree with Cayce. The KJV is "far from perfect." I wonder whether Cayce, if he were alive today and could see other new English translations, would feel differently. I suspect that he would bow to the pressure and go along with what is called "KJV Onlyism."
In my post (here) "Elder Sylvester Hassell on Translations" I cite where Hassell wrote:
"Nowhere in the Bible does God promise to inspire or make infallible translators or transcribers or printers; but the men of God who first wrote the Sciptures were, as they claim, and as is abundantly demonstrated, inspired of God; and He has not allowed these variations of others to affect a single doctrine or practice of His Written Word." (The Gospel Messenger, 1914, page 45)
In another post (here) I cite from Hassell's History as follows:
In Hassell's Church History, we note these words:
"It is unfortunate that King James's, or the Authorized Version of the Bible, always translates by the same term "beast" the two different Greek words zoon and therion in the book of Revelation." (page 253)
I am sure that he and Cayce would likewise say that it is unfortunate that the KJV always translates "world" by two different Greek words aion and cosmos. We could give other examples.
On page 508 of Hassell's "History of the Church of God" we read:
“The seventeenth century was the century of the publication of the King James or Authorized Version of the English Bible (in 1611), the best and noblest of all the translations of the Bible ever made in any language.”
So, both Cayce and Hassell, though both said that they believed that the KJV was best (in their day) yet they did not believe it was perfect.
In this post (here) I cited from a "Primitive Baptist" elder from Welsh Neck Primitive Baptist church, Elder Robert Lackey, who said this about the translators of the KJV:
"If these baby-sprinkling, Baptist-persecuting, state-church loving Episcopalians were inspired as were the prophets, poets, historians, evangelists and apostles then we are bound to account the King of England and Pope of the Church of England as also inspired by the Holy Ghost when he set forth his rules for the translators. Now whether or not King James was a cross-dresser or a boy child lover we will not speculate upon. There is evidence from his enemies he was; there is evidence from his friends he was not. That part matters not to us, what we can say is while in Scotland he was a Presbyterian, but his religious convictions were so strong that he gladly embraced Episcopacy when crowned King of England, and became head (pope) of the Church of England."
No comments:
Post a Comment