bibleprotector said:
logos1560 said:
In his 1593 book advocating that prelatic or Episcopal church government is apostolic, Bishop Thomas Bilson, who would be co-editor of the 1611 KJV, acknowledged that some use 1 Corinthians 12:28 as one verse that they cite for Presbyterian church government. Bilson wrote: “There remained yet one place where governors are named amongst ecclesiastical officers, and that is 1 Corinthians 12†(Perpetual Government, p. 197). Bilson wrote: “Why should they not be lay elders or judges of manners? Because I find no such any where else mentioned, and here none proved. Governors there were, or rather governments†(p. 199). Bilson claimed that “Chrysostom maketh ‘helps’ and governments’ all one†(p. 212). In 1641, George Gillespie maintained that “Chrysostom, expounding this place, doth not take helps and governments to be all one, as Bilson hath boldly, but falsely averred†(Assertion of the Government of the Church of Scotland, p. 19). The 1611 edition of the KJV does exactly what Bilson suggested by connecting the words “helps†and “governments†with “in.â€
Talk about conspiracy theories. You are now suggesting that a typographical error in the first 1611 Edition, that was corrected very early on, was supposedly part of some plot to foist prelatical ecclesiology or something?
You ignore the sound, historical evidence, including from a first-hand source, Thomas Bilson, co-editor of the 1611. You provide no sound evidence that proves that it is supposedly a "typographical" error in the 1611 edition. Concerning the 1611's rendering at 1 Corinthians 12:28, David Norton asserted: "In the absence of clear evidence to the contrary, one must take the 1611 text as deliberate" (
Textual History of the KJB, p. 34).
The king's printer in London who had available the text prepared by the makers of the KJV themselves to use to correct any printing errors introduced in the 1611 edition did not correct it for the first twenty years when the translators' text may have been used to correct some actual printer's errors, and no KJV translators themselves evidently pointed it out to the king's printers as being a printer's error that needed correcting. It was later changed at Cambridge where a number of 1611 renderings, that were not printing errors, were changed to renderings that matched or agreed with those in the Geneva Bible.
1 Corinthians 12:28 [helpers, governours--1560 Geneva]
helps in governments [1817, 2005, 2011 Cambridge] {1611, 1613, 1614, 1616, 1617, 1631 London} (1816 Albany) (1816 Collins) (1828 Holbrook) (1827 Smith) (1854 Harding) (2006 PENG)
helps, governments (1769 Oxford, SRB) [1629, 1769 Cambridge, DKJB]
Benjamin Hanbury quoted the following from the preface to the reader in the Just Defence of the Petition for Reformation that was printed in
1618: “1 Corinthians 12:28 is translated, both by the Genevan and former Church translation [Bishops’] ‘helpers, governors,‘ but
the new translators, herein worse than the Rhemists, translate it ‘helps in governments;‘ foisting into the text this preposition ‘in.‘ Why? They cannot abide elders to assist the minister in governing Christ’s Church. So their churchwardens are but the prelates’ promoters†(Historical Memorials, I, p. 131). In his exposition of Ezekiel, William Greenhill (1598-1671) asserted that 1 Corinthians 12:28 “is faulty in this place, reading those words thus, ‘helps in government,‘ which was done to countenance all the assistants prelates had in their government†(p. 551). In his 1648 sermon, Thomas Hill maintained that helps in governments “is a most horrible prodigious violence to the Greek words; for they are both the accusative case, helps; there are elders; governments, there are deacons; now to obscure these, you must put it, helps in governments†(Six Sermons, p. 25).
bibleprotector said:
Your conspiratorial view doesn't stand up to historical scrutiny: divine providence shows Congregationalists, Presbyterians and Anglicans all using the KJB for centuries. Going to the KJB first is the way to resolve proper of Church governance.
Separtists, Presbyterians, Congregationalists, and Baptists already had their distinctive views of church government before the KJV was made, which would indicate that the KJV was not the actual source of their views. You do not provide any sound evidence that demonstrates that the KJV is supposedly the source of congregational church government views or presbyterian church government views, which already existed before the KJV was made. The fact that later Presbyterians or Baptists may have tried to find some support for their already existing views in the KJV does not suggest what you claimed.
A Confession of Faith by a group of Separatists in 1596 maintained in Article 23 “that as every Christian congregation hath power and commandment to elect and ordain their own ministry according to the rules prescribed†and the verses cited were Acts 6:3, 5, 6 and Acts 14:23 (Lumpkin, Baptist Confessions, p. 89). In a 1611 Confession of Faith thought to have been written by Thomas Helwys, Article 21 noted “that these Officers are to be chosen when there are persons qualified according to the rules in Christ’s Testament (1 Timothy 3:2-7, Titus 1:6-9, Acts 6:3-4) by election and approbation of that church or congregation whereof they are members (Acts 6:3-4 and 14:23) (Lumpkin, p. 122). The 1677 Second London Confession of Faith by Baptists maintained that a bishop or elder is “to be chosen thereunto by the common suffrage of the Church itself,†and
it cited Acts 14:23 in the margin with the comment “See the original†(Lumpkin, p. 287; McGlothin, Baptist Confessions, p. 266). The 1742 Philadelphia Confession of Faith by Baptists retained the same words that had been based on Acts 14:23: “to be chosen thereunto by the common suffrage of the church itself†(Cathcart, Baptist Encyclopaedia, p. 1320).
Baptists in England in the 1600’s had based at least a portion of their doctrine of church government on the original language text at Acts 14:23 with clear support from the Latin translation of Erasmus, the Latin translation of Beza, and the pre-1611 English Bibles. Did the KJV in effect remove part of the scriptural support for this aspect of the Baptist doctrine of church government?
In his Annotations, John Diodoti translated his own Italian Bible into English at Acts 14:23 as “when they had by common votes ordained.†James Harrington rendered Diodati’s Bible as “When they had ordained them in every church by the common votes†(Prerogative, Two, p. 78). James Corcoran translated Diodati’s rendering as “ordained elders for them by general suffrage†(American Catholic Quarterly Review, 1880, Vol. 5, p. 710). Riplinger maintained that “the Italian Diodati†was a “pure†edition of the Bible (Hazardous, p. 646). The Dutch Annotations as translated into English by Theodore Haak in 1657 presented the first part of the text of Acts 14:23 as follows: "And when they in every church with lifting up of hands had chosen them elders." In 1657, Harrington translated the words in the Dutch Bible appointed by the Synod of Dort as “When in each church by the holding up of hands they had elected presbyters†(Prerogative, Two, p. 78). In an article in The Baptist Magazine for 1871, the author or editor W. G. Lewis asserted that they translated literally the 1637 Dutch Version at Acts 14:23 as follows: “And when they had chosen elders for them in every congregation with uplifted hands†(p. 584). Edwin Hall wrote that “the ancient French version reads, ‘And after having by common suffrages ordained elders’†(Puritans, p. 305). Francis Turretin maintained that our French version of the Scriptures “understands cheirotonian of a creation by votes or election†(Institutes, III, p. 229). Perhaps that French version was the revision of Robert Oliventanus’ version that was made by Theodore Beza. Henry Baird noted that “Beza found time to give a careful and final revision to the French version of the Bible in common use among Protestants†(Theodore Beza, p. 330). Baird wrote: “Thus was developed the famous ’Bible of the Pastors and Professors of Geneva,’ which, from 1588 on to almost our own times, has passed through a multitude of editions and exercised a vast influence on successive generations of readers†(Ibid.). Harrington presented the rendering of the Swiss Bible of Zurich as follows: “When they had created them elders by suffrages in every congregation†(Prerogative, Two, p. 77). Along with the Latin New Testaments of Erasmus and Beza, the Italian, Dutch, French, and Swiss Bibles agreed with the pre-1611 English Bibles at Acts 14:23.
