# KJV only



## INsearch (Jan 19, 2010)

Hi guys, I'm hoping this is a correct area to place a thread like this, but first before I go any further, forgive me if this is just me being Naive but this being a reformed board, I am hoping that there are some KJV-only folks kicking around? I'm not going to bring up much about the missing verses, because I was told older better texts where found and thats why they have been ommited SO even with this evidence there are still KJV-only people around, and there MUST be a reason for that, I am hoping (if there are KJV-only people around) for a healthy discussion of the merits of KJV-only and the counter to why its not good.

If this isn't the right place then I apologize and ask it get moved to the right area.


----------



## etexas (Jan 19, 2010)

Joshua...I am a King James Primary. LOL. My name for my position....I feel the intent of the Gospel and our Duties to God and man, CAN be found in a solid CT based Bible. That said: I do prefer the Byzantine stream, there are fewer internal conflicts of BT stream readings those found that have (in the BT stream) a deviation...to be small. The CT...In my humble opinion...at times makes me nervous. What I mean is this, look at just Aleph and B, there is this "unstable" feel to the readings the deviations of JUST Aleph and B are all over the map. The only WAY to reconcile is use other manuscripts create a Greek NT such as NA 27 cobble it together THEN in your apparatus (the term for footnotes dealing with deviations and alternates) use this to thread things together, even then, if you study the NA from initial work to the current an odd thing happens...more and more Byzantine or closely Byzantine readings begin showing in the apparatus AND in the NT proper...hmmm.. I don't know the feel is not stable. This is JUST my take.


----------



## MMasztal (Jan 19, 2010)

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?


----------



## etexas (Jan 19, 2010)

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?


 I agree..this is why I was clear..I was KJ "primary"....it has more to do with how I view the underlying Hebrew and Greek as being solid, the AV as the translation....more a choice based on the Literary quality cadence and flow...(I was also clear in I do NOT think those using other translations forsake their souls.) I mean, I just reviewed a new Edition of the ESV and a GLOWING review. Mine is one of...where I lean, I am not dogmatic on the subject.


----------



## INsearch (Jan 19, 2010)

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?


Personally I got no clue in regards to the language thing, I think if I was KJV (which..I'm looking into atm..I'm not one right now) only person..I would say that the KJV for us English folks is the most accurate less deviated version of Gods word in our language.



Edit: I found an answer to your language question which sounds fair enough I guess.




> God has preserved His words through the broad flow of history in certain specific languages: Hebrew, Greek, Old Latin and English. Other languages have the blessed opportunity to follow what God has revealed and translate it into their languages.
> 
> People today say, "How dare you King James-only people! You just want to force people to translate the KJV into other languages!" But look at the NIV: That perversion is being translated all over the world, and it is STILL the NIV! The NVI in Spanish, for example, is not very different at all from the NIV. The Dutch, French and other versions are still NIVs! And the NIV is most definitely an English Bible.
> 
> ...


http://www.chick.com/ask/articles/otherlanguages.asp


----------



## VictorBravo (Jan 19, 2010)

Moved to Translations and Manuscripts.

Joshua, there are many threads on this topic, and most of them are found in the Translations and Manuscripts forum. In the past, debate on this topic has become heated, so the forum is moderated.

May I suggest reading through some of the other threads in this forum to get a feel for the issues. If you want to see an irenic defense of the KJV, search some of Jerusalem Blade's postings. 

There are many others who hold the view that the KJV is the proper English translation--and they are not at all in the same camp as the so-called "KJV-onlies."


----------



## INsearch (Jan 19, 2010)

Alrighty..I had initially wen't searching for them by using the search function, but its confusing now..and I wasn't getting results for what I was looking for. I will search them out again.


----------



## DMcFadden (Jan 19, 2010)

KJVOnly conjures up associations and a semantic range that is quite different from the stance taken by Max (etexas) in his aforementioned posts.

In its most extreme incarnation, it implies a commitment to a view of preservation that leads to saying that the English of the KJV should correct the extant manuscripts and that all other translations are not only theoretically corrupt, but demonic deceptions.

For some on the PB, their position is similar to Max: the texts behind the Byzantine/Majority tradition are more original and more doctrinally reliable than those behind the Critical Text. Yet, many of them will, like Max, aver that this does not mean that the Critical Text is not the Bible. Indeed, it can be trusted for doctrine.

I personally waffle between the NKJV and ESV. I like that fact that the NKJV is about the only Bible that tells you where the variants from the KJV can be found in the Critical Text and the (critical) Byzantine/Majority text traditions. And, the NKJV has a remarkable fluidity of cadance that makes it superior _contemporary_ English to the KJV (in my opinion). The ESV has received wide acceptance from Reformed leaders and followers alike. I consider it the best of the Critical Text translations.

Beyond the textual question, there is also the issue of translation philosophy. Because I prefer the formal correspondence translations, my options are reduced to the following English translations: CT - ESV, HCSB, and NAS; TR - KJV and NKJV.

For the PB, the most erudite and complete treatments of the topic from the KJV perspective are those of Jerusalem Blade.


----------



## larryjf (Jan 19, 2010)

DMcFadden said:


> For the PB, the most erudite and complete treatments of the topic from the KJV perspective are those of Jerusalem Blade.


 
I would also add Rev. Winzer (Armourbearer) as an erudite KJV supporter.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Jan 19, 2010)

Hello Joshua (and Michael), 

It's a difficult and nuanced topic, KJO. I myself use the designation _King James priority_, as I do recognize the legitimacy of other Bibles, which I have written concerning in a few posts that can be found in this collection of threads / posts (⇐ link) on textual matters, particularly the thread responding to James White of AOMIN.

There are good arguments for the Greek and Hebrew texts underlying the KJV being the best, and for the KJ being the best translation of them (in English). Some of these reasons are elaborated on in the link given above. However, seeing as I live in a community of believers many of whom do not hold to my views on the KJ, but still love the Scriptures they have — _and are not convinced of the KJV position_ — shall I try to tear down the faith in God's word which they have and use? Were I to do that, would I not be an enemy to their faith? So I reckon their Bibles as legitimate, though I will indeed take exception to variant readings in them, most of which _are omissions_ from the texts I hold that the Lord providentially preserved for His people. There is a difference, then, between defending my view, and still honoring their versions in the main, though not in certain particulars.

I will not yield when I am told that this or that authentic Bible passage or word is not "in the most reliable manuscripts", but will defend what I hold is true. That can be done while treating my brothers and sisters with respect and love, yet hold firm on the issues.

This desire to be irenic does not mean I wimp out in the fray, but can vigorously prosecute my case, and seek to demolish arguments which I think are against the truth. One can do this while still holding an "opponent" in respect and brotherly affection. With brethren it is swordplay among friends. Though even with unbelievers — discussing these things — one can be a gentleman, that is, maintain the integrity of the Spirit of Christ who indwells us.

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,

_Who is a wise man and endued with knowledge among you? let him shew out of a good conversation his works with meekness of wisdom.

But if ye have bitter envying and strife in your hearts, glory not, and lie not against the truth.

This wisdom descendeth not from above, but is earthly, sensual, devilish.

For where envying and strife is, there is confusion and every evil work.

But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be intreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy.

And the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace of them that make peace._ (James 3:13-18)​
I'm sorry that time does not permit me to engage here in a discussion of particular texts with you, though the link above does have many such discussions.

Steve


----------



## George Bailey (Jan 19, 2010)

"Personally I got no clue in regards to the language thing, I think if I was KJV (which..I'm looking into atm..I'm not one right now) only person..I would say that the KJV for us English folks is the most accurate less deviated version of Gods word in our language."

Not being critical, but if you don't understand original language, and textual backgrounds, how can you say that the KJV is the most accurate?



> God has preserved His words through the broad flow of history in certain specific languages: Hebrew, Greek, Old Latin and English. Other languages have the blessed opportunity to follow what God has revealed and translate it into their languages.
> 
> People today say, "How dare you King James-only people! You just want to force people to translate the KJV into other languages!" But look at the NIV: That perversion is being translated all over the world, and it is STILL the NIV! The NVI in Spanish, for example, is not very different at all from the NIV. The Dutch, French and other versions are still NIVs! And the NIV is most definitely an English Bible.
> 
> ...


What about other languages? Has God only preserved a Bible for the English speaking peoples?[/QUOTE]

These statements are non-confessional; God has only preserved his word in the original manuscripts; all others are only translations.

BC


----------



## INsearch (Jan 19, 2010)

hmm, well I feel a little sucked into this now. I am actually very soon planning on buying an ESV study bible, however after taking a perusal of Jack Chicks website I found something.



> John 7:8-10 (King James Version)
> 
> 8Go ye up unto this feast: I go not up yet unto this feast: for my time is not yet full come.
> 
> ...





> John 7:8-10 (English Standard Version)
> 
> 8You go up to the feast. I am not[a] going up to this feast, for(A) my time has not yet fully come." 9After saying this, he remained in Galilee.
> 
> 10But after(B) his brothers had gone up to the feast, then he also went up, not publicly but in private.


Now I don't want it to be said that I am probably being too critical but look at these two versions...one of these makes Christ look like a liar...simply because the word "yet" was left out  now I know the ESV points to it being in omitted in the footnotes but I have this thing about wanting my Scriptures to be as accurate as possible, any advice on this guys? any words or insight on how getting a ESV shouldn't be a problem? Thanks for your patience in dealing with me


----------



## etexas (Jan 19, 2010)

DMcFadden said:


> KJVOnly conjures up associations and a semantic range that is quite different from the stance taken by Max (etexas) in his aforementioned posts.
> 
> In its most extreme incarnation, it implies a commitment to a view of preservation that leads to saying that the English of the KJV should correct the extant manuscripts and that all other translations are not only theoretically corrupt, but demonic deceptions.
> 
> ...


 I stand with my Good Friend Dennis! I would point out and I am sure Dennis and others here agree (which is why I "tie" my final not to that which Dennis stated.......the PB does not have "true" KJO sorts like Riplinger, and Chick, and Ruckman! Those like myself, who have the KJV as their primary Bible are balanced (as I said I JUST reviewed a great new ESV edition! An odd thing if I were cultic KJO! ) I think Dennis and other Mods and Admins would point that J-Blade, myself and others have our reasons for which we use the KJ, J-Blade is not an "onlyist either we have in PM both spoken of the merits of the NKJV and he has used it. We further have spoken of the good points of solid work on some CT based editions."...that is as "close" as you will find to KJO here! Really it is! There are about 20 and change of us who use an AV as our "primary" non of us toss terms like demonic...perverted manuscripts or make it a element of salvation at most...we would say, we feel...Byzantine is to be a more stable Greek Text. However, we would affirm, truths of Salvation are to be found in a well translated CT Bible. None of use would ever be demeaning. Grace and Peace. (Bad Organist...on post # 26, you waved a valid question as "gibberish" it was a logical question, you can ask a person to amplify without resorting to "gibberish". Blessings.


----------



## larryjf (Jan 19, 2010)

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"


----------



## AThornquist (Jan 19, 2010)

Joshua, I thought the ESV Study Bible notes were interesting on John 7:



> John 7:8 - Jesus' statement, “I am not going up to this feast,” should not be taken as a mistake by John or a falsehood by Jesus, even though John then records that Jesus did go up to the feast (v. 10). The Greek present tense in v. 8 can legitimately have the sense, “I am not now going,” indicating that Jesus did not go up to the feast in the way the brothers suggested, for they wanted Jesus to manifest himself to his contemporaries for secular reasons. In fact, many of the oldest and best manuscripts have oupō (Gk. “not yet”) rather than simply ouk (Gk. “not”), and that might have been the original reading, though the reading “not” seems more likely to be original.


----------



## etexas (Jan 19, 2010)

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/
> 
> ...


 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.


----------



## George Bailey (Jan 19, 2010)

INsearch said:


> hmm, well I feel a little sucked into this now. I am actually very soon planning on buying an ESV study bible, however after taking a perusal of Jack Chicks website I found something.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
I'd say that the word "but" is the word that seems to indicate that Jesus was potentially contrary to his original statement...I wonder if that's in the original language. (I'm not a scholar..)

I would caution you against the pro-KJV arguments that come from the position of "the KJV says X, but if you read it in any other version, you get 'heretical-X'", as if the KJV is the true word of God...in other words, variance from the original languages should be an argument, not variants from the KJV. 
In other, other words, a doctrine should only come from, and be defended from, the original languages, not ultimately from any one translation of the original languages.


----------



## yeutter (Jan 19, 2010)

My Church uses the KJV. I guess that makes me a KJV primary. If I have a doubt as to the meaning of a passage I compare the KJV with ESV, Youngs, ASV, Geneva, Wycliffe, & Matthews.


----------



## MW (Jan 19, 2010)

If you were a traveller in a foreign city and you were seeking asylum in your nation's embassy, but you needed to ask direction where that embassy might be found, you would not expect to be told there were five such places, and that you must weigh what each one said in order to arrive at what seemed to you to be a good place to find asylum.

We must ask the vital question, Which Bible has the stamp of God's approval? We should not be content to rest our faith on human authority but must find refuge in the authority of God speaking in His Word. If one desires the word of God, it is only right that he be given the word of God. God's word is true, therefore the translation one chooses should be the most accurate. Others might decline to accept this criteria when recommending a translation of the Bible; they might cast aspersions on others who genuinely seek after this criteria; but whatever response one meets with, it remains an undoubted fact that these criteria are essential to a faithful translation. It is not a translation of Calvin's Institutes we seek. We desire a faithful translation of The Holy Bible, the inspired and infallible word of God, the lamp to our feet and light to our path, that which is to be our meditation day and night. The translation on which we settle simply must be TRUE and TRUSTWORTHY; it must be THE BEST.

I believe the Authorised Version is the best translation of the Scriptures available today. It is based upon the reformation text of the Old and New Testaments. The men who translated it were committed to the faith of the reformation. Their method of translation was in accord with the reformation conviction that the translator's task was to provide the people with an accurate verbal equivalent in their native language of what God originally inspired and preserved. Did they succeed? History tells us they did. Bible scholars tell us they did. The Authorised Version became the "common Bible" of the English speaking people. What has changed? Well, English has changed to some degree. But this only means learning a few antiquated words and forms from the Oxford English Dictionary. It is no different from having to use a Bible Dictionary to understand the specialised words and customs which are part and parcel of the Bible story itself. And broadening one's understanding of the English language can only help to make one more literate and therefore more competent to understand the literature of the Bible. More than that, however, the reader of the Authorised Version is becoming acquainted with the pure tradition of the word of God -- the reformation tradition. He reads the Bible with heartfelt trust that this is the living and abiding word of God, that this is the Bible that has guided generations of English speaking Christians to their heavenly rest.


----------



## TimV (Jan 19, 2010)

> More than that, however, the reader of the Authorised Version is becoming acquainted with the pure tradition of the word of God -- the reformation tradition.



Do you feel more of a spiritual kinship to the translators of the AV or to the translators of the Geneva Bible? And of all the other criteria you use, 



> It is based upon the reformation text of the Old and New Testaments. The men who translated it were committed to the faith of the reformation. Their method of translation was in accord with the reformation conviction that the translator's task was to provide the people with an accurate verbal equivalent in their native language of what God originally inspired and preserved.



is there a difference between the AV and Geneva?


----------



## MMasztal (Jan 19, 2010)

Here's something interesting. We had Mike Riddle from Answers in Genesis come to our church for a seminar last Sunday and my school Monday. My wife and I took Mike and his wife, Leslie out for lunch afterward. I noted that had his presentation used only KJV for biblical references and asked why. He said that he visits many churches and that there are many churches that would loudly object to AiG or anyone using a version other than the KJV.


----------



## MW (Jan 19, 2010)

Tim, They are both part of the same tradition. The AV is an overall improvement on its predecessor. This is attested by the Puritan preface to Poole's Annotations.


----------



## larryjf (Jan 19, 2010)

etexas said:


> larryjf said:
> 
> 
> > Here are some other threads that may give you what you're looking for...
> ...


 
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.


----------



## kvanlaan (Jan 19, 2010)

Not sure if this is a little off-topic, but could you (Pastor Winzer) comment briefly on the difference between the Geneva and the AV (or, to keep it more on topic, why not the Geneva, as it is a contemporary of the KJV)? They are both Majority text, but the one is a 'better' translation. OK, but why?


----------



## TimV (Jan 19, 2010)

> Tim, They are both part of the same tradition. The AV is an overall improvement on its predecessor. This is attested by the Puritan preface to Poole's Annotations.



Agreed (my post was evidently deleted, but I asked Pastor Winzer how the Geneva Bible didn't match his criteria).

So, as we've discussed, Augustine wrote several letters to Jerome asking him not to use the Hebrew to translate the OT, since the Church had been using the/a Greek text for almost 400 years to translate the OT. He said that even though in some places, like Jonah, he felt the Hebrew was more accurate than the Greek, the Church had been using the Greek as an ecumenical text for hundreds of years, and that was more important than a few differences which didn't make any difference to any Christian doctrine.

So, as you admitted on another thread, there are (your example was Rev.16:5) questionable places of translation in the AV/TR, where the AV/TR doesn't follow even the Byzantine text type, why aren't you open to updating the TR and AV like Jerome did in his day?

A related question is, should the Lord tarry, would you in another 400 years still support the use of the AV, even if the difference in English continues to change at the same rate as it has from the time of the AV to now?


----------



## Bad Organist (Jan 19, 2010)

AThornquist said:


> Joshua, I thought the ESV Study Bible notes were interesting on John 7:
> 
> 
> 
> > John 7:8 - Jesus' statement, “I am not going up to this feast,” should not be taken as a mistake by John or a falsehood by Jesus, even though John then records that Jesus did go up to the feast (v. 10). The Greek present tense in v. 8 can legitimately have the sense, “I am not now going,” indicating that Jesus did not go up to the feast in the way the brothers suggested, for they wanted Jesus to manifest himself to his contemporaries for secular reasons. In fact, many of the oldest and best manuscripts have oupō (Gk. “not yet”) rather than simply ouk (Gk. “not”), and that might have been the original reading, though the reading “not” seems more likely to be original.


 
This sounds like scholarly gibberish to me. Saying nothing is probably better than this convoluted information which makes you want to ask more questions. 

Arie V
F C of Scotland
Toronto, Canada


----------



## reformedminister (Jan 20, 2010)

Joshua, I am not KJV only but a KJV/NKJV (TR/Byzantine text) supporter. I believe that many of the new translations are excellent translations of the Critical text, my favorite being the ESV. I have stated my reasons on previous threads and cannot add more to what has already been said. I do believe that the KJV only camp is in error and is divisive to the Church. I mostly study and exclusively preach from the KJV because of it's beauty, it's history as the English Bible for centuries, and it's accuracy (in my opinion) to the original autographs.


----------



## kvanlaan (Jan 20, 2010)

> This is attested by the Puritan preface to Poole's Annotations.



Is that online anywhere? I'd love to read it.


----------



## Grymir (Jan 20, 2010)

Hi Insearch,

Alot of the replies have brought out the textual part of it. Hill's book above is perhaps the best read on the subject. I highly recomend reading it. Alot of the KJV-only crowd (Ruckman, Riplinger) give us KJV users a bad name. They are not very scholarly. But the Hill's book make a great case. The best if you ask me. 

But there are other reasons to use the King Jimmy. The precision of the language is also important. It was written with a view of being read aloud. When I use it publicly, it commands attention in ways the other translations don't. (ie, God doesn't like such and such vs. Thus saith the LORD, It's an abomination unto me). 

If a person spends anytime witnessing to the cults, ie, Mormon or JW, using the KJV makes the job alot easier. Like once I was talking to the mormons and I whipped out my KJV and they said, "you use the King James? Most Christians don't use that anymore!" and we were able to have a good exchange. When I found out they were young earthers, we had an instant bonding that made dialoge meaningful.

Plus, when I pick up a modern version, it's like reading a Dick and Jane book. I have a hard time delving into what God is saying and how it relates to other parts of the Bible.


Now, some of what I've listed above is Objective, some of it Personal. Both of those things are important when choosing a translation. I don't like it when someone picks up a KJV and pontificates out of it, not having a clue to what the words mean. Some people pick up the NIV and don't have a clue to what it's saying. It's better if someone picks up a translation that they can understand and use. Use being the key word. A used ESV is far better than the dusty KJV on the self.


----------



## MW (Jan 20, 2010)

TimV said:


> why aren't you open to updating the TR and AV like Jerome did in his day?


 
I've never said I'm not open to updates. There are threads on PB where I explicitly endorse it. The qualification, however, is that such updating should not be factional and divisive. Our subordinate standards were framed with the utmost care by godly and learned divines who had covenanted for the purpose of promoting united Christianity amongst their kingdoms. Why should any less be required for the framing of our supreme standard upon which the subordinate standard depends?


----------



## MW (Jan 20, 2010)

kvanlaan said:


> > This is attested by the Puritan preface to Poole's Annotations.
> 
> 
> 
> Is that online anywhere? I'd love to read it.


 
Not sure. I know it is available in the Online Bible annotation on Gen. 1:1.


----------



## etexas (Jan 20, 2010)

larryjf said:


> etexas said:
> 
> 
> > larryjf said:
> ...


 Lol! Look at my post! (not to derail) I think your eyes "crossed"! I was clear Hills WAS Presbyterian...Pax


----------



## jeffm05 (Jan 20, 2010)

armourbearer said:


> kvanlaan said:
> 
> 
> > > This is attested by the Puritan preface to Poole's Annotations.
> ...


 
I think it is located here.


----------



## pepper (Jan 20, 2010)

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.


----------



## MW (Jan 21, 2010)

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.


 
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.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Jan 22, 2010)

The AV's use of the word "Easter" has been discussed here before:

http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/pascha-acts-12-4-a-46832/#post594643

Please note: the link to Will Kinney article on Easter in these threads is defunct; the new one is here: Kinney on Easter

http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/linguistic-superiority-between-geneva-KJV-28275/#post343707


----------



## pepper (Jan 22, 2010)

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.


----------



## MW (Jan 22, 2010)

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.



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.



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.


----------



## dudley (Jan 22, 2010)

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.


----------



## etexas (Jan 24, 2010)

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.


 Greetings Pepper. Not all who who worked on the AV were Anglican. As my Fave Uncle used to say to me me "Keep digging."


----------



## bug (Jan 25, 2010)

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.



Didn't Tyndale translate it 'ester' in his 1534 edition of the NT?


----------



## ChristopherPaul (Jan 29, 2010)

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/
> 
> ...


 
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.


----------



## larryjf (Jan 29, 2010)

ChristopherPaul said:


> larryjf said:
> 
> 
> > Here are some other threads that may give you what you're looking for...
> ...


 
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.


----------



## christianhope (Jan 29, 2010)

Here are links to Edward Hills works on amazon.com - also might want to try bookfinder.com a very useful site:

Amazon.com: The King James Version Defended (9780915923007): Edward F. Hills: Books

Amazon.com: Believing Bible Study (9780915923014): Edward F. Hills: Books

Both of the above works defend the KJV and TR translations.


----------



## Manuel (Feb 10, 2010)

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?


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


----------



## dudley (Feb 20, 2010)

*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


----------



## Peairtach (Feb 21, 2010)

Why is the KJV not always published with the Translators' Preface and the alternative readings in the margin?


----------



## Gator_Baptist (Feb 22, 2010)

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.


----------



## Peairtach (Feb 23, 2010)

*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,



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.


----------



## jayce475 (Feb 23, 2010)

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.
> 
> ...


 
"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.


----------



## MW (Feb 23, 2010)

Gator_Baptist said:


> He believes that KJVOism is the only view that actually teaches real Biblical Preservation down to the jot and tittle.


 
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.


----------



## Gator_Baptist (Feb 23, 2010)

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.


 
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.


----------



## Peairtach (Feb 23, 2010)

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?


----------



## DMcFadden (Feb 23, 2010)

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.


----------



## MW (Feb 23, 2010)

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.


 
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.


----------



## PointyHaired Calvinist (Feb 27, 2010)

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?



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


----------

