Acts 1:20 - bishopric

[Steven Avery]

Acts 1:20 (AV)
For it is written in the book of Psalms,
Let his habitation be desolate,
and let no man dwell therein:
and his bishoprick let another take.

 

[Steven Avery]

Facebook - Textus Receptus Academy
https://www.facebook.com/groups/467217787457422/posts/1308439053335287/

Robert Lee Vaughn

Did King James translator Miles Smith say that the Archbishop Richard Bancroft was so insistent on “using the glorious word bishopric” that he altered Acts 1:20 to read “His bishopric left another take”? Gustavus Paine said so (and others have repeated it).

“He is so potent there is no contradicting him,” said Smith, and cited as an example of Bancroft’s bias his insistence on using ‘the glorious word bishopric’ even for Judas in Acts 1:20 ‘His bishopric left another take.’” (Gustavus S. Paine, The Men Behind the KJV, 1959, p. 128).

But is this correct? What is Paine’s source for this statement? I cannot be certain, since this is a popular work without citations/footnotes. However, Paine lists The Translators Revived by Alexander McClure in his bibliography. And McClure does mention this. Yet McClure does not say that Miles Smith said Bancroft was so insistent on having “the glorious word bishopric” in the Bible. It is McClure himself that says it. He quotes Smith as saying “But he is so potent there is no contradicting him.” Then McClure (not Smith) says “Two of those alleged alterations are quite preposterous” and comments on Acts 1:20 and Acts 19:37. (Alexander Wilson McClure, The Translators Revived, 1853, pp. 220-221).

Is there an older source that McClure that makes any reference to Miles Smith, Richard Bancroft, and “the glorious word bishopric”? I’ve yet to find one, and would be glad to know if anyone knows. Thanks.

(1854)
https://books.google.com/books?id=HT4XAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA220
https://www.google.com/books/editio...NjKNyrAH-xNMDXztQDKi7Liu7lIrzTM1C79ejf51Gztzw

1855
The British Millennial Harbinger p. 73 75 76 243
https://books.google.com/books?id=Z_gDAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA73

 

[Steven Avery]

(2008) BVDB
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/bibleversiondiscussionboard/foisted-into-the-1611-t4188.html

ACTS 1:20 - bishopric

And on bishopric, are you aware of the earlier Bibles that used the very same word ?

Somehow Rick Norris omitted that history (as did Alexander McClure who, in the mid-1800s, actually appears to be the originator of this complaint against the King James Bible translators) ! McClure is known for some loose reporting, which anyone who studies the sources learns very quickly. This was all exposed on a previous thread and is still hidden by the Rick Norris probabalism anti-scholarship. Rick strangely only quotes Gustavus Paine (a secondary source to a report that has no true primary source) despite Paine showing no independent source than McClure a century earlier. And Rick strangely omits mentioning the lack of any complaints known before McClure, nor the blunderama nature of the McClure writing (see below).

McClure, in assailing the translations for a supposed mistranslation tampering, somehow missed that bishopric was the
historic English translation in Acts 1:20 as : the word used in Wycliffe, Tyndale, Cramer, Coverdale and the Bishop's Bible !

Perhaps Wycliffe and Tyndale morphed into episcopalian prelates in the strange accusation world of McClure, who either did not find or hid this information from his readers. We do not know for McClure, however Rick Norris is without excuse. Rich writes deceptively deliberately, brazenly, hiding the scholarship truth from his readers -- why ? -- only to further the unscholarly probabalism accusation-by-proxy agenda (where Rick does not have to stand behind the
accuracy of what he quotes, nor claim it as his own view).

The emphasis on secondary sources, the hiding of primary sources, the lack of cogent analysis of the weak primary sources, is all typical Rick Norris. The bishopric accusation was simply a McClure disaster, as he gave no earlier source and had a propensity for such dubious writing and he missed the most salient facts in writing as if the word was a new creation in the King James Bible.

Bsihopric is all covered very nicely in:
http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/transtoc.htm

Who were the King James Version Translators?

Although he missed the Bishop's Bible aspect.

Here is a simple example of the Rick Norris School of Deceptive Writing. Norris quotes Gustavus Paine (who almost
surely simply got this from McClure) :

Bancroft's insistence on using "the glorious word bishopric even for Judas in Acts 1:20" (Men Behind the KJV, p. 128).

Yet Rick is well aware that there is no quote from Bancroft to back up this "glorious word" insistence (similar
to McClure "quoting" Miles Smith). We have simply deceptive writing by Rick Norris by quoting secondary sources that Rick well knows have no substantive base. I would call this incompetent on Rick's part, but I believe it is competently deceptive.

====================

Continues on p. 4 - post 37 commenting on the blah-blah criminal citation games from Rick
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/bib...d/foisted-into-the-1611-t4188-s30.html#p48570

 

[Steven Avery]

More Rick Norris and my response and the first explanation of citation games.

KJV translator reported alterations in translators' text (2008)
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/fin...eported-alterations-in-translators-t7114.html

==========================================================

CITATION GAMES
http://wayback.archive.org/web/*/http://www.scos.org/page5/assets/Notework May 2005 issue.pdf

Citation games: comments on the paper by Annette Risberg - Michael Wood, Portsmouth Business School, May 2005
... long lists of references in academic works are (sometimes at least) largely for show, and may not stand up to scrutiny as serious evidence. The list of crimes detected include ... multiple secondary references to the same source ... The end result is that references may be used to create “a taken for granted truth” which may not be accurate, but is probably persuasive because of the number of apparently credible references that are cited.

===============================================

 

[Steven Avery]

Hill stated: "In the first of the Acts, speaking of Judas, Let another man take his Bishoprick; it is forced, it signifies charge or inspection: but that you may believe that the Bishops are the Apostles' successors, let another man take his bishoprick" (p. 24)

probably Six sermons of Thomas Hill.

Edward Whiston asserted that “many of those in King James’ time (had they been as well conscientious in point of fidelity and godliness, as they were furnished with abilities, they) would not have moulded it to their own Episcopal notion rendering episkope, (the office of oversight) by the term Bishoprick Acts 1:20 as they do in 14 places more” (Life, p. 44).
http://continuingcounterreformation.blogspot.com/2011/01/masonic-king-james.html


Doug Kutilek
https://sharperiron.org/article/ear...of-kjv-leonard-busher-1614-and-henry-jessey-0
He acknowledged in the first place touching that work, that since the Reformation the Lord hath stirred up in this and other Protestant countries diverse and learned and (some of them) godly men to advance it. And many of these in King James’ time, had they been as well conscientious in point of fidelity, and godliness, as they were furnished with abilities [emphasis added] they would not have moulded it to their own Episcopal notion rendering episkopen (the office of oversight) by the term bishop, Acts 1:20, etc. as they do in 14 more places. (p. 44)

==========================

Dictionary of the Bible (1893)
https://books.google.com/books?id=V5N6KQyprawC&pg=PA1677

The Men Behind the King James Bible '
Gustavus Swift Paine
The Learned Men (1959)
https://archive.org/details/learnedmen009479mbp/page/n147/mode/1up
https://books.google.com/books?id=9xl-AAAACAAJ
published in 2012 as The Learned Men

Wide As the Waters: The Story of the English Bible and the Revolution
Bobrick (2001)
2011
https://books.google.com/books?id=lvyKnhiavIMC&pg=PT201
2001
https://books.google.com/books?id=nl-zc0JkAtUC&pg=PA248

AV1611.com - ask Brandon

Historical revisionism and accusations against the KJB
Bibleprotector (2008)
https://web.archive.org/web/20120324101257/http://www.bibleprotector.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=167

Zeolla with Rick Norris tricky Ricky sturff
http://www.dtl.org/versions/article/text.htm