KJV only

Status
Not open for further replies.
larryjf said:
etexas said:
larryjf said:
Here are some other threads that may give you what you're looking for...
http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/skepticism-doubt-toward-bible-52046/
http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/jerusalem-blades-posts-partial-compilation-48676/

I would recommend that you get a couple of good books to read through to get a good foundation in this particular discipline.

Pro-KJV:
  • Theodore Letis, "The Ecclesiastical Text" (this is rare, but if you PM me i can give you contact info on where to get it)
  • Edward Hills, "The King James Version Defended"
Pro-Modern:
  • "God's Word in Our Hands: The Bible Preserved for Us" (isbn: 1889893870)
  • D. A. Carson, "King James Version Debate, The: A Plea for Realism"
Click to expand...
Hills was a Presbyterian, so I think overall his is a good Reformed look. I do not agree at all points with him....but Hills was Phi Beta Kappa degrees from 3? "Ivys" he was a smart guy.
Click to expand...

And Hills was a teacher of Letis...but he certainly comes form a different perspective. Letis delves much more into the historical dimension while Hills delves more into the faith dimension.

It was actually Hills who was the Presbyterian...Letis was a Lutheran.
Click to expand...
Lol! Look at my post! (not to derail) I think your eyes "crossed"! I was clear Hills WAS Presbyterian...Pax
 
I am a Byzantine/Majority Text man. I primarily use the KJV and the NKJV. I use to be a KJV only man years ago. My eyes were opened to problems within the KJV which should prevent anyone from being a KJV only person. Two examples: Acts 12:4 "Easter" for the word "Passover" and I Tim. 3:1 "bishop" for "overseer". Some KJV only people claim one error or problem is reason to reject other translations, but they do not hold the KJV to the same standard.
 
pepper said:
Two examples: Acts 12:4 "Easter" for the word "Passover" and I Tim. 3:1 "bishop" for "overseer". Some KJV only people claim one error or problem is reason to reject other translations, but they do not hold the KJV to the same standard.
Click to expand...

As a matter of good English neither Acts 12:4 nor 1 Tim. 3:1 produce "errors"in the AV. Any problems that arise over the translations "Easter" and "bishop" are the result of misunderstanding as to what these words refer in their simplicity. I am more than willing to subject the AV to the scrutiny of a fair and impartial trial. The kind of ridiculous criticism which arises from a hidden agenda to justify loose theories of translation is not worth a hearing, in my humble opinion.
 
I respectfully disagree with you. The men that translated the KJV were Church of England except for one, I believe, and they where constantly in a battle with those who held to the Geneva Bible 1560 over the holidays. The form of Church Government was also a big issue and King James did not like that Puritans were wanting to change the church government. King James did not like the Geneva Bible because of its Puritan and Presbyterian notes. The KJV was not even accepted generally until about 1630, see "A Visual History of the English Bible" by Donald L. Brake, Baker Books, 2008.
 
pepper said:
I respectfully disagree with you. The men that translated the KJV were Church of England except for one, I believe, and they where constantly in a battle with those who held to the Geneva Bible 1560 over the holidays. The form of Church Government was also a big issue and King James did not like that Puritans were wanting to change the church government.
Click to expand...

If the AV translators had in fact desired to find biblical support for an ecclesiastical holiday it was counterproductive to choose to alter easter to passover as a general rule. Their general practice shows that could not have been the motivation. Besides, anyone who is conversant with the worship debates between Elizabethans and Puritans will know that ecclesiastical holidays were urged on the basis of church authority, not biblical authority.

The Geneva uses "bishop" in 1 Tim. 3:1. The AV cannot be charged with introducing this translation as if the translators manifested an episcopal bias. Further, the AV follows the Geneva in adopting "overseers" in Acts 20:28.

pepper said:
King James did not like the Geneva Bible because of its Puritan and Presbyterian notes. The KJV was not even accepted generally until about 1630, see "A Visual History of the English Bible" by Donald L. Brake, Baker Books, 2008.
Click to expand...

The fact that King James did not like the Geneva annotations has no bearing on the discussion as to whether the AV is more accurate than the Geneva.

It is par for the course that a translation must first be tried before it finds general approval.
 
The Authorized Version is what I read mostly. I have several Bibles. I like the KJV I received a copy as a gift from My Anglican friends when I first became a Protestant in 2006. I still have a Roman catholic Bible having been at one time a Roman catholic. I find however the reading the Authorized Version helps me best in becoming acquainted with the pure tradition of the word of God in the Protestant reformation tradition. I have a faith and trust that this is the living and abiding word of God, that this is the Bible that has guided Protestants since the 16th century to understanding the truth of the scripture which as Protestants is our final authority.
 
pepper said:
I respectfully disagree with you. The men that translated the KJV were Church of England except for one, I believe, and they where constantly in a battle with those who held to the Geneva Bible 1560 over the holidays. The form of Church Government was also a big issue and King James did not like that Puritans were wanting to change the church government. King James did not like the Geneva Bible because of its Puritan and Presbyterian notes. The KJV was not even accepted generally until about 1630, see "A Visual History of the English Bible" by Donald L. Brake, Baker Books, 2008.
Click to expand...
Greetings Pepper. Not all who who worked on the AV were Anglican. As my Fave Uncle used to say to me me "Keep digging.";););)
 
pepper said:
I respectfully disagree with you. The men that translated the KJV were Church of England except for one, I believe, and they where constantly in a battle with those who held to the Geneva Bible 1560 over the holidays. The form of Church Government was also a big issue and King James did not like that Puritans were wanting to change the church government. King James did not like the Geneva Bible because of its Puritan and Presbyterian notes. The KJV was not even accepted generally until about 1630, see "A Visual History of the English Bible" by Donald L. Brake, Baker Books, 2008.
Click to expand...

Didn't Tyndale translate it 'ester' in his 1534 edition of the NT?
 
larryjf said:
Here are some other threads that may give you what you're looking for...
http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/skepticism-doubt-toward-bible-52046/
http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/jerusalem-blades-posts-partial-compilation-48676/

I would recommend that you get a couple of good books to read through to get a good foundation in this particular discipline.

Pro-KJV:
  • Theodore Letis, "The Ecclesiastical Text" (this is rare, but if you PM me i can give you contact info on where to get it)
  • Edward Hills, "The King James Version Defended"
Pro-Modern:
  • "God's Word in Our Hands: The Bible Preserved for Us" (isbn: 1889893870)
  • D. A. Carson, "King James Version Debate, The: A Plea for Realism"
Click to expand...

Thank you Larry. Where can these books be purchased? A quick check at a few common sites and it appears they are out of print.
 
ChristopherPaul said:
larryjf said:
Here are some other threads that may give you what you're looking for...
http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/skepticism-doubt-toward-bible-52046/
http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/jerusalem-blades-posts-partial-compilation-48676/

I would recommend that you get a couple of good books to read through to get a good foundation in this particular discipline.

Pro-KJV:
  • Theodore Letis, "The Ecclesiastical Text" (this is rare, but if you PM me i can give you contact info on where to get it)
  • Edward Hills, "The King James Version Defended"
Pro-Modern:
  • "God's Word in Our Hands: The Bible Preserved for Us" (isbn: 1889893870)
  • D. A. Carson, "King James Version Debate, The: A Plea for Realism"
Click to expand...

Thank you Larry. Where can these books be purchased? A quick check at a few common sites and it appears they are out of print.
Click to expand...

The Hills book can be read online, but i'm not sure of anywhere who still prints it...
The King James Verison Defended by Edward F. Hills

God's Word in our Hands looks to be available at Amazon...
Amazon.com: God's Word in Our Hands: The Bible Preserved for Us (9781889893877): James B. Williams, Randolph Shaylor: Books

The D.A. Carson book is available through Westminster, Phila bookstore...
Westminster Bookstore - Reformed Books - Low Prices - Flat Fee UPS Shipping - King James Version Debate: A Plea for Realism

If you P.M. me i will give you contact information for the widow of Dr. Letis who had the Ecclesiastical Text the last time i checked with her.
 
MMasztal said:
I've always thought the KJV-only mentality as odd. More specifically, the individuals who believe that all other versions are corrupt, demonic, etc., and those using NKJV/ESV/NASB are facing an eternity in damnation.

What do people from countries who do not have English as their language use for a Bible?
Click to expand...
I use Reina Valera in Spanish, translated from the Textus Receptus in 1569 (42 years before the King James Version), and has been through five revisions so far, to me this is the best Bible, I particularly like the 1960 revision best.

I'm RV-only;)
 
I have and read regularly the KJV of the Bible

I have and read regularly the KJV of the Bible given to me by a friend when I became a Protestant in 2006. I do like the beauty of its language and it is the Bible that has inspired many Protestants for almost 400 to 500 years. I am still learning what it means to be a Protestant and reading what was considered by many to be the Protestant Bible has meaning for me as a new Protestant. I would suggest that you also read the following article, I did and found it very informative.
"Roots" of the KJV Controversy
The Unlearned Men:
The True Genealogy and Genesis of King-James-Version-Onlyism
by Doug Kutilek
 
Why is the KJV not always published with the Translators' Preface and the alternative readings in the margin?
 
I have not posted in a while, but I thought that I could somewhat contribute my input to this thread. I also prefer the TR. I am by no means a KJVO. I just call myself a KJVP since I prefer it over all other versions.

But I do have a roommate who is as hardcore KJVO as it gets. His argument is a simple one. He believes that KJVOism is the only view that actually teaches real Biblical Preservation down to the jot and tittle. Anything else is a "fish-rapper Bible." And he'll go so far as to say that the King James is not a version. It is the Bible. So when he gets a Bible he makes sure that it says "King James Bible" on it.

The way that my roommate sees it is that there are really only two options:

#1: The Bible is the King James and whatever manuscript it was translated from is no longer in existence. Therefore the Bible no longer exists in Greek and Hebrew, but it exists in languages that are currently spoken.

#2: God hid His word from His people for over 1500 years and Biblical Preservation failed for 1500 years. He loves this Dean John William Burgon quote:

There exists no reason for supposing that the Divine Agent, who in the first instance thus gave to mankind the Scriptures of Truth, straightway abdicated His office; took no further care of His work; abandoned those precious writings for their fate. That a perpetual miracle was wrought for their preservation--that copyists were protected against the risk of error, or evil men prevented from adulterating shameful copies of the Deposit--no one it is presumed, is so weak as to suppose. But it is quite a different thing to claim that all down the ages the sacred writings must needs have been God's peculiar care; that the Church under Him has watched over them with intelligence and skill; has recognized which copies exhibit a fabricated, which an honestly transcribed text; has generally sanctioned the one, and generally disallowed the other. I am utterly disinclined to believe--so grossly improbable does it seem--that at the end of 1800 years 995 copies out of every thousand, suppose, will prove untrustworthy; and that the one, two, three, four, or five which remain, whose contents were til yesterday as good as unknown, will be found to have retained the secret of what the Holy Spirit originally inspired. I am utterly unable to believe, in short, that God's promise has so entirely failed, that at the end of 1800 years much of the text of the Gospel had in point of fact to be picked by a German critic out of a waste-paper basket in the convent of St. Catherine; and that the entire text had to be remodelled after the pattern set by a couple of copies which had remained in neglect during fifteen centuries, and had probably owed their survival to that neglect; whilst hundreds of others had been thumbed to pieces, and had bequeathed their witness to copies made from them.
Click to expand...
 
Quote from Steve
There is coming a time — such is the Biblical view of the days to come upon us — when we shall be an increasingly persecuted people, and I mean severely (notwithstanding the Pollyanna eschatologists), and I would not want to be a disturber of the peace of the already afflicted people of God over the Bible issue. As it is written,
Click to expand...

A bit off-topic, but from this thread....

There is plenty room in postmillennialism for severe persecution in the Western world, as there already is in China and Islamic countries, because postmillennialists don't know when better days are coming. It could be fifty years, 100 years, 500 years, 1000 years.
 
Gator_Baptist said:
I have not posted in a while, but I thought that I could somewhat contribute my input to this thread. I also prefer the TR. I am by no means a KJVO. I just call myself a KJVP since I prefer it over all other versions.

But I do have a roommate who is as hardcore KJVO as it gets. His argument is a simple one. He believes that KJVOism is the only view that actually teaches real Biblical Preservation down to the jot and tittle. Anything else is a "fish-rapper Bible." And he'll go so far as to say that the King James is not a version. It is the Bible. So when he gets a Bible he makes sure that it says "King James Bible" on it.

The way that my roommate sees it is that there are really only two options:

#1: The Bible is the King James and whatever manuscript it was translated from is no longer in existence. Therefore the Bible no longer exists in Greek and Hebrew, but it exists in languages that are currently spoken.

#2: God hid His word from His people for over 1500 years and Biblical Preservation failed for 1500 years. He loves this Dean John William Burgon quote:

There exists no reason for supposing that the Divine Agent, who in the first instance thus gave to mankind the Scriptures of Truth, straightway abdicated His office; took no further care of His work; abandoned those precious writings for their fate. That a perpetual miracle was wrought for their preservation--that copyists were protected against the risk of error, or evil men prevented from adulterating shameful copies of the Deposit--no one it is presumed, is so weak as to suppose. But it is quite a different thing to claim that all down the ages the sacred writings must needs have been God's peculiar care; that the Church under Him has watched over them with intelligence and skill; has recognized which copies exhibit a fabricated, which an honestly transcribed text; has generally sanctioned the one, and generally disallowed the other. I am utterly disinclined to believe--so grossly improbable does it seem--that at the end of 1800 years 995 copies out of every thousand, suppose, will prove untrustworthy; and that the one, two, three, four, or five which remain, whose contents were til yesterday as good as unknown, will be found to have retained the secret of what the Holy Spirit originally inspired. I am utterly unable to believe, in short, that God's promise has so entirely failed, that at the end of 1800 years much of the text of the Gospel had in point of fact to be picked by a German critic out of a waste-paper basket in the convent of St. Catherine; and that the entire text had to be remodelled after the pattern set by a couple of copies which had remained in neglect during fifteen centuries, and had probably owed their survival to that neglect; whilst hundreds of others had been thumbed to pieces, and had bequeathed their witness to copies made from them.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

"whatever manuscript it was translated from is no longer in existence"? What position is this? Dean Burgon, as well as myself and most other preservationists, all do hold that the bible is preserved in the greek and hebrew of the Byzantine family, though there are different positions on precisely what manuscripts are preserved. To say that the KJB is THE bible, despite not claiming double inspiration, does still sound like Ruckmanism.
 
Gator_Baptist said:
He believes that KJVOism is the only view that actually teaches real Biblical Preservation down to the jot and tittle.
Click to expand...

Preservation relates to the text in the original languages. The AV is a faithful translation of the preserved text. There is of course a question as to the preservation of the 1611 AV translation. But the preservation of the original text is an entirely different question to the quality of the translation of that text, so the quality of translation cannot be a marker of the doctrine of preservation.
 
armourbearer said:
Preservation relates to the text in the original languages. The AV is a faithful translation of the preserved text. There is of course a question as to the preservation of the 1611 AV translation. But the preservation of the original text is an entirely different question to the quality of the translation of that text, so the quality of translation cannot be a marker of the doctrine of preservation.
Click to expand...

I have attempted to explain this to my KJVO friend, but he always dogmatically sticks to the position that if there is not a book in the English language that contains God's Word perfectly preserved down to the jot and tittle, then God's promise to preserve His Word has failed.

He pretty much holds to the idea that the job done by that translation committee was pretty much controlled by Divine Inspiration. And then if anyone ever questions the translation that person is accused of being arrogant because they think that they are better than the King James translators who were the only ones that had some specially preserved text that he claims is no longer in existence.

It is really hard to reason with KJVO's because KJVOism usually goes hand in hand with Solo Scriptura, which is only made possible by their conception of what Biblical Preservation is.

I'll have to say that I have attempted to have this conversation with my KJVO friend numerous times, but at a certain point they just get so dogmatic about their position and the premises that their position rests on that it really does become impossible for them to be objective and reasonable about the subject.
 
Maybe someone could clarify things for me a little, please, since this isn't a subject I've looked at as closely as I should?

KJV, NKJV are based on the traditional/ textus receptus/ Byzantine text (?) Are any others available today based on the Byzantine text?

All other versions including American Standard Bible (1901), New ASB, NIV and ESV are based on the post-nineteenth century Critical Text?
 
The Robinson/Pierpont The New Testament in the Original Greek is based on the wider Byzantine tradition rather than the TR. The NKJV is the only widely published English Bible translation I know that is essentially based upon the TR, but flags variants in the NA27/UBS4 AND the Byzantine Majority text tradition where they differ from the TR.
 
Gator_Baptist said:
It is really hard to reason with KJVO's because KJVOism usually goes hand in hand with Solo Scriptura, which is only made possible by their conception of what Biblical Preservation is.
Click to expand...

Perhaps try taking them through the Translators' Epistle to the Reader; especially the way it makes translation subordinately servicable to the text itself. E.g., "Translation it is that openeth the window, to let in the light; that breaketh the shell, that we may eat the kernel; that putteth aside the curtain, that we may look in to the most holy place; that removeth the cover of the well, that we maycome by the water." There is also reference to the tradition of translation and dependence upon other versions.
 
Richard Tallach said:
Maybe someone could clarify things for me a little, please, since this isn't a subject I've looked at as closely as I should?

KJV, NKJV are based on the traditional/ textus receptus/ Byzantine text (?) Are any others available today based on the Byzantine text?
Click to expand...

None of the major ones I know of use the Byzantine text; however some of independent translations do:

World English Bible - a modernization of the ASV but with the Majority text as its NT basis
Analytical-Literal Translation - sort of an "Amplified Bible" style rendition of the Majority Text
Jay Green's translations (MKJV, KJ3/Literal) - Received Text
21st Century KJV/Third Millennium Bible - modernization of some archaic language (thees and thous still preserved), but an update rather than a translation
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top