Question to KJV-only people

Status
Not open for further replies.

Neogillist

Puritan Board Freshman
I was wondering what were the main arguments that KJV-only people use in favor of their position. There must be some KJV-only guys on this board. Is it simply that they do not recognize the Dead Sea Scrolls as a good strain of manuscript, which was used to form some of the more modern translations? I heard there are some old folks who believe there was some type of inspiration that occured in the formation of the AV/KJV, which I hope none of you are buying into.

I also thought that the best translation overall is actually the NASB, which scores the highest for literal accuracy.

My church uses the NKJV, and I personally accept the KJV, RSV, NKJV, ASB, NASB, ESV, and 1599 Geneva Bible as good translations, and reject all the others. My favorite, however is the 1599 Geneva and second favorite, the ESV.
 

etexas

Puritan Board Doctor
I am a "Primary" AV user, it is based on the Hebrew and Greek used as well as the elegance of the English. I do not believe in "nutty" advanced revelation, nor do I judge people on their translation of choice, I would rather someone read the NIV than NEVER read Scripture at all.:2cents: (To be honest I doubt you will find anyone here who is KJO in a Peter Ruckman sense.)
 

Grymir

Puritan Board Graduate
Hello Neogillist! I'm at work, but I'll talk your ear off when I get home, and give you good reasons.

:popcorn:
 

KMK

Administrator
Staff member
I was wondering what were the main arguments that KJV-only people use in favor of their position. There must be some KJV-only guys on this board. Is it simply that they do not recognize the Dead Sea Scrolls as a good strain of manuscript, which was used to form some of the more modern translations? I heard there are some old folks who believe there was some type of inspiration that occured in the formation of the AV/KJV, which I hope none of you are buying into.

I have been on the PB for over a year and do not remember coming across any KJOs of the sort you describe.

I also thought that the best translation overall is actually the NASB, which scores the highest for literal accuracy.

I know for a fact that there are many one PB who disagree with you on this point.

My church uses the NKJV, and I personally accept the KJV, RSV, NKJV, ASB, NASB, ESV, and 1599 Geneva Bible as good translations, and reject all the others. My favorite, however is the 1599 Geneva and second favorite, the ESV.

What you will find on PB are people who question the presupposition that every Christian is obligated to decide for themselves which is the best translation.
 

xint

Puritan Board Freshman
What I want to know is how people claim to be 1611AV only when what they actually have is from 1769.. including the lack of apochrypha..
 

Galatians220

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
If you compare the biographies of the translators of the KJB and those of Brook Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort (the translators of the English Revised Version [1881], from which virtually all "new" translations spring), you might find a stark difference that does matter with regard to what each respective team of translators produced.

There are other, very helpful threads on this board that discuss this issue.

For Bible study now, I'm partial to the 1599 Geneva, which I bought several months ago. This is the result of 10 years now of studying the Bible versions issue. It's been an informal study; during it, I've compared over 1,700 verses, including those in Roman Catholic Bibles. As my mere broaching of the subject of Bible versions to elders and ministers resulted in marked ostracism, I've now concluded that my study of the issue is for my use only.

Substantively speaking, though, there are solid reasons that Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus were excluded by the 1611 translators (they were known to them, or so say some sources), but I am not the one to discuss them.

For empirical reasons to support Textus Receptus Bible versions over the higher critical text, I rely on the scholarship of people like the late Dr. Theodore Letis, Dean Burgon and Dr. Edward Freer Hills:

The King James Verison Defended by Edward F. Hills

They're the scholars; I'm not. :judge:

Margaret
 

Jerusalem Blade

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Hello Steven,

That's a good point. I don't know anyone who claims to be "1611AV only" here at PB. Although the 1611 and the 1769 are essentially the same (the minor variances are a whole other discussion). The Apocrypha was included as historically helpful, but not -- as in the RC version -- as Scripture.

Steve
 

BertMulder

Puritan Board Junior
I use both the Geneva and KJV. Must say that I like the prose of the KJV better (merely because of familiarity)

In addition, I use the Dutch Statenvertaling.

Our church uses the KJV.
 

AV1611

Puritan Board Senior
What I want to know is how people claim to be 1611AV only when what they actually have is from 1769.. including the lack of apochrypha..

The revisions were simply to ensure uniformity of spelling and punctuation.

Psalm 146:1 "Praise yee the Lord: prayse the Lord, O my soule."​

became

Psalm 146:1 "Praise ye the LORD. Praise the LORD, O my soul."​
 

Grymir

Puritan Board Graduate
What I want to know is how people claim to be 1611AV only when what they actually have is from 1769.. including the lack of apochrypha..

I use the 1873 Scrivener Cambridge Paragraph KJV. Besides, who claims to be 1611AV-only when most claim to be KJV-only. :lol: (My logic teacher in college would be so proud of me for that statement!)

A real KJV user isn't of the Gail Ripplinger or Peter Ruckman type. They use too many logical fallacies. The people who advocated the NIV when it first came out used the same logical fallacies when they promoted the NIV too in the way they put down the KJV. In reference to the Dead Sea Scrolls in the OP, they actually give validity to the KJV, By showing that the text hadn't changed from the 1st century. The Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus are full of errors and missing alot of stuff, so they are not very reliable. To promote a translation based on them, as did the NIV, shows that there are problems. I'm no scholar in the trained, I've studied 20 years of Hebrew and Greek, lived in Ancient Rome sense, but if a layman like me can do research on my own and find this out, why couldn't they? Jerusalem Blade's links are good, but this link provided by Galatians 220 is perhaps my favorite - http://www.Jesus-is-lord.com/kjvdefen.htm It is deeply philosophical. It shows the philosophical development of modern times and the philosophy's behind the translations. To me that say's it all.

For me, the preciseness of the KJV is one of the biggest reasons I use it. I can use it and talk/debate with college trained libs and use it to show what the texts really say. They always ask me "what does the original mean?" I tell them I'm no scholar, what does it say in the original and they always end up saying what the KJV says. I think that's profound. Hence I'm a real KJV user. Thats the real title we should use. KJV-only has been corrupted by the Ruckman/Ripplinger types.

I'm sorry I didn't get back after work like I said. Jerusalem and Galatians links give a real reason to use KJV. But like a Moth to a flame, I couldn't stay away once I saw it pop up again. Long Live the King! - Grymir
 

Galatians220

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
I think one can evangelize better with Textus Receptus versions and the tried-and-true method "Scripture interprets Scripture" more precisely (for oneself, too, when troubled or whatever) when using them than other versions, because you see how if it says "this" in one passage, it's reiterated or restated precisely in another. I could give a multitude of examples of how this is so, but this isn't the place to do it.

Permit me just a few, though: can you take Luke 4:4 in its entirety (KJB and other TR versions) and show its back-up in Job 23:12 or Deuteronomy 8:3? Or how about Luke 24:51, KJB vs. NASB? Or Genesis 15:1 in all versions? (There's the covenant spelled out in the TR versions, and also in the NIV, I admit!)

Bottom line: Proverbs 30:6; cf. 2 Corinthians 2:17 in various versions...:book2:

Margaret
 

jogri17

Puritan Board Junior
I like my ESV and NASB very much however I can respect a KJV prefered kinda person. I just can't respect the argument that I see online all the time that Satan uses modern language and only the language of the KJV (which isn't even how they talked back then) is from God. I have never meet a KJV only advocate who was a greek/hebrew scholar or who was any NT/OT scholar.
 

Grymir

Puritan Board Graduate
I like my ESV and NASB very much however I can respect a KJV prefered kinda person. I just can't respect the argument that I see online all the time that Satan uses modern language and only the language of the KJV (which isn't even how they talked back then) is from God. I have never meet a KJV only advocate who was a greek/hebrew scholar or who was any NT/OT scholar.


You won't find those kind of arguments used by people on the PB. Those are bad arguments that give us real KJV users a bad name. There's lot's of bad arguments out there. I've seen them all, and I cringe at those kind that you mentioned. Check out the philosophical link I provided above. I was amazed. - Grymir
 

xint

Puritan Board Freshman
questions and notes,

. I agree the textual vs translation issues must not be conflated as they often are. I wonder, why do we not see a "modern " TR translation?

. as to diffs between 1611 and modern KJV- is it actually only spelling variations? I haven't found an electronic version of the 1611 to compare!

. My experience with KJV-only folks is pretty limited. The majority have not been very familiar with the issues (particularly, with the question of text). I have heard of 1611-only folks online. One person who was talking about KJV only sort of stopped discussing it after he learned that my two bibles in my hand were Maltese and Greek.

. As I remember learning from my Greek teacher, 'received text' was just an abbreviation for the byline that the edition went by. I don't like seeing that taken as a tautology, "The KJV uses the *received text*, what does yours use?".

. If we are looking at philosophies (and I have not read the entirety of the linked article, thanks for linking that) why promote the name of 'king james'?

. the Geneva notes are great. I think the new printers should have included the apocrypha.
 

Jerusalem Blade

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Steven,

You said,

As I remember learning from my Greek teacher, 'received text' was just an abbreviation for the byline that the edition went by. I don't like seeing that taken as a tautology, "The KJV uses the *received text*, what does yours use?".

Here is some info on the origin and use of the phrase (I lifted it from another post of mine on a similar topic):

There were a number of Greek texts in the Reformation era, the primary of which were, Stephen’s, Beza’s, and the Elzevirs. The Trinitarian Bible Society’s 1894 Textus Receptus ["Received Text"] was put together by Scrivener to indicate the exact Greek text underlying the KJV. As a distinct Greek text it never existed before Scrivener complied it. The 1611 translators picked and chose from the different Greek texts, the previous English versions – and other language versions – when rendering the AV. The TR 1894 but gives a Greek text exactly corresponding to the English of the AV, though it corresponds primarily to the text of Beza.

Here is some background on the “TRs”.

The Trinitarian Bible Society's edition contains F.H.A. Scrivener's edition of "The New Testament in the Original Greek according to the text followed in the Authorized Version" (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1894 and 1902). In the Preface this TBS edition says,

The editions of Beza, particularly that of 1598, and the last two editions of Stephens, were the chief sources used for the Authorized Version of 1611.

The Elzevir partners, Bonaventure and Abraham, published editions of the Greek text at Leyden in 1624, 1633, and 1641, following Beza's 1565 edition, with a few changes from his later revisions. The preface to the 1633 Elzevir edition gave a name to this form of the text, which underlies the English Authorized Version, the Dutch Statenvertaling of 1637, and all of the Protestant versions of the period of the Reformation--"Textum ergo habes, nunc ab omnibus receptum..." [you have the text that is now accepted by all]. The Elzevir text became known throughout Europe as the Textus Receptus or Received Text, and in course of time these titles came to be associated in England with the Stephens text of 1550.

The editions of Stephens, Beza and the Elzevirs all present substantially the same text, and the variations are not of great significance and rarely affect the sense. The present edition of the Textus Receptus underlying the English Authorized Version follows the text of Beza's 1598 edition as the primary authority, and corresponds with [Scrivener's of 1894 and 1902].​

It is the early TR editions (and the Ben Chayyim edition of the Masoretic Hebrew) the Westminster Confession (1:8) refers to when it says:

The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it, was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical...​

True, this is no longer commonly understood in most Presbyterian and Reformed churches, as B.B. Warfield sort of redefined the meaning of the WCF at this point, though the history of this has been documented.

[I took some of the beginning of this post from the thread, http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/tr-editions-19120/.

Steven, why would you want the Apocrypha included in your Bible?
 
Last edited:

AV1611

Puritan Board Senior
xint;421902as to diffs between 1611 and modern KJV- is it actually [B said:
only[/B] spelling variations? I haven't found an electronic version of the 1611 to compare!

There are minor variations in terms of word order, spelling and punctuation but there is no substantive difference. E-sword has the AV1611 to download.

Have a gander at Philippians 1:1-7 KJV on top in bold, AV1611 text on bottom:

1 Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons:

1 Paul and Timotheus the seruants of Iesus Christ, to all the Saints in Christ Iesus, which are at Philippi, with the Bishops and Deacons:

2 Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.

2 Grace be vnto you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Iesus Christ.

3 I thank my God upon every remembrance of you,


3 I thanke my God vpon euery remembrance of you,

4 Always in every prayer of mine for you all making request with joy,

4 Alwayes in euery prayer of mine for you all making request, with ioy

5 For your fellowship in the gospel from the first day until now;

5 For your felowship in the Gospel from the first day vntill now;

6 Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ:

6 Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you, will performe it vntil the day of Iesus Christ:

7 Even as it is meet for me to think this of you all, because I have you in my heart; inasmuch as both in my bonds, and in the defence and confirmation of the gospel, ye all are partakers of my grace.

7 Euen as it is meete for mee to thinke this of you all, because I haue you in my heart, in as much as both in my bonds, and in the defence and confirmation of the Gospel, ye all are partakers of my grace.
 

Pilgrim

Puritanboard Commissioner
questions and notes,

. I agree the textual vs translation issues must not be conflated as they often are. I wonder, why do we not see a "modern " TR translation?

. as to diffs between 1611 and modern KJV- is it actually only spelling variations? I haven't found an electronic version of the 1611 to compare!

. My experience with KJV-only folks is pretty limited. The majority have not been very familiar with the issues (particularly, with the question of text). I have heard of 1611-only folks online. One person who was talking about KJV only sort of stopped discussing it after he learned that my two bibles in my hand were Maltese and Greek.

. As I remember learning from my Greek teacher, 'received text' was just an abbreviation for the byline that the edition went by. I don't like seeing that taken as a tautology, "The KJV uses the *received text*, what does yours use?".

. If we are looking at philosophies (and I have not read the entirety of the linked article, thanks for linking that) why promote the name of 'king james'?

. the Geneva notes are great. I think the new printers should have included the apocrypha.

This site has the AV1611 as well as other Reformation era translations such as the Geneva, Bishops, Coverdale and Tyndale's New Testament.

The NKJV NT purports to be translated from the Scrivener text of the TR, although some will argue with a few renderings here and there and claim it was really the Critical Text (CT) instead. It appears to me that many of the objections to the NKJV are overblown, although the Trinitarian Bible Society does appear to have a point at times. Without a doubt the NKJV is largely translated from the TR even though most of those who led the translation effort (i.e. Farstad) preferred the Majority Text instead. (This is why it is often erroneously thought that the NKJV is based on the Majority Text.) Most often the NKJV NT is faulted by KJV and TR advocates for its inclusion of alternate marginal readings from the MT and CT, which is alleged to raise doubts in the mind of the reader.

The OT of the NKJV is translated from the modern text that all modern translations use (Biblia Hebraica) instead of the text that was underlying the KJV (ben Chayyim).
 

xint

Puritan Board Freshman
Thanks for the links to the original 1611 texts. I think that a revision is a revision. I have a 1613/1614 "He" KJV ( pic here ). So it's good to see some of these sites list 1611 vs 1769 or even 1611/1769 when referring to their text. Thanks for posting the side by sides, AV1611.

Why would I want the Apocrypha? Because it is useful for study, though not inspired. It can be useful for cultural and linguistic content. The KJV had some of the Apocrypha set to music for singing (!) but i don't think it was in the lectionary. I was a bit surprised to see that.

Jerusalem, thanks for the link on the TR. My TR was apparently printed before (British and Foreign Bible Society, 1876) Scrivener's 1894.

Jerusalem and 1611av - do you have any comment on the Geneva Bible from a KJV perspective, about the textual basis, about James' understandable reaction to the notes..? (or Wyclif / Tyndale for that matter ) - I think the Geneva is based on Erasmus' 1516 Greek, but I'm not sure.

I'm going to have to look into a Ben Chayyim, right now all I have (online and off) is BHS.
 

AV1611

Puritan Board Senior
I think that a revision is a revision

The question is whether the revision is substantive, which it isn't.

do you have any comment on the Geneva Bible from a KJV perspective, about the textual basis, about James' understandable reaction to the notes..? (or Wyclif / Tyndale for that matter ) - I think the Geneva is based on Erasmus' 1516 Greek, but I'm not sure.

The GB was also based on the Textus Receptus. The differences are again insubstantive.

Here is Romans 6:1-7, KJV is in bold:


1 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?
1 What shall we say then? Shall we continue still in sinne, that grace may abounde? God forbid.

2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?
2 Howe shall we, that are dead to sinne, liue yet therein?

3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
3 Knowe ye not, that all we which haue bene baptized into Iesus Christ, haue bene baptized into his death?

4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
4 We are buried then with him by baptisme into his death, that like as Christ was raysed vp from the dead to the glorie of the Father, so we also should walke in newnesse of life.

5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:
5 For if we be planted with him to the similitude of his death, euen so shall we be to the similitude of his resurrection,

6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.
6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sinne might be destroied, that henceforth we should not serue sinne.

7 For he that is dead is freed from sin.
7 For he that is dead, is freed from sinne.
 

Pilgrim

Puritanboard Commissioner
Thanks for the links to the original 1611 texts. I think that a revision is a revision. I have a 1613/1614 "He" KJV ( pic here ). So it's good to see some of these sites list 1611 vs 1769 or even 1611/1769 when referring to their text. Thanks for posting the side by sides, AV1611.

A lot of the early editions of the AV had typesetting errors and what we today would call quality control issues.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top