Historical Proofs for KJVOnlyism

Discussion in '2003 Archive' started by Scott J, Feb 12, 2003.

  1. Scott J

    Scott J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    0
    After 8 pages, no scriptural evidence was given for proving that only the KJV is the Word of God in English for us today. At the same time, Pastor Larry and others have demonstrated that documents other than the KJV have rightly been called the Word of God- both in English and other languages.

    It has long been my contention that there is no valid evidence for KJVOnlyism from scripture nor history. So now, I come to the more difficult, subjective question:

    What are the historical and textual proofs that the KJV and only the KJV is the Word of God for English speaking people of our day?

    Anecdotal, unprovable answers such as "more people have been saved with it" or "its the Bible God uses" are not proof and therefore not acceptable responses.

    For purposes of answering this question, appeals to authors from the past 100 years is virtually worthless. The contention of our side of this debate is that KJVOnlyism originated within the last 100 years therefore has no valid historical or textual support.

    The purpose of this question is not to argue whether the KJV is superior to MV's and therefore the Bible of choice... but rather why it should be accepted exclusively as the Word of God in English.
     
  2. Ransom

    Ransom
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2000
    Messages:
    4,132
    Likes Received:
    0
    Another thread that should be short (but probably won't be).
     
  3. Pastor_Bob

    Pastor_Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2002
    Messages:
    3,461
    Likes Received:
    45
    It is important to note that pre-1890 comments that referred to "the Holy Bible" always referred to the KJV. So, if you're looking for a direct quote that says, "The KJV is the only Word of God," you'll not find it phrased like that from this period. All references to God's Word from that era (English speaking people of course) represented the KJV.
     
  4. kman

    kman
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2002
    Messages:
    299
    Likes Received:
    0
    Another way to answer this is to show that Christians (1611-1881) had no problems "correcting" the King James Version and pointing out it's flaws.

    If they felt it was the perfect word of God in
    English they wouldn't correct the translation.

    One example:

    Here is Matthew Henry's (early 1700's) comments on Acts 12:4
    (regarding the use of Easter):

    "(2.) He would do this after Easter, meta to pascha - after the passover, certainly so it ought to be read, for it is the same word that is always so rendered; and to insinuate the introducing of a gospel-feast, instead of the passover, when we have nothing in the New Testament of such a thing, is to mingle Judaism with our Christianity."

    -kman
     
  5. kman

    kman
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2002
    Messages:
    299
    Likes Received:
    0
    Historic Confessions: Westminster and 1689 London Baptist

    Notice final appeal is made to the original Hebrew and Greek..not the King James Version
    (or any translation).


    Chapter 1 Paragraph 8:

    VIII. 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; so as, in all controversies of religion, the church is finally to appeal unto them. But, because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God, who have right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them, therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come, that, the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship him in an acceptable manner; and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope.


    -kman
     
  6. Scott J

    Scott J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    0
    It is also important to note that people prior to 1890 knew that there were other translations and that the authority for any translation comes from the original language texts with the texts' authority coming from the mss supporting their readings.

    Apparently, some were also aware that the predominance of the KJV was not due to its superiority but rather due to the Anglicans domination of religious affairs up to the apex of the British Empire. Our concept of religious freedom didn't exist until the Revolution. It is noteworthy that revisions of the AV ceased as the Empire began its decline and the modern idea of religious freedom began to take hold even in England.

    What you and others would leave unsaid, needs to be said... The unrivaled dominance of the KJV for the first 250 years of its existence was a direct result of religious intolerance. One of the universal Baptists distinctives is separation of church and state yet some of you all here would make the use of a state sponsored translation a test of Baptist orthodoxy.
     
  7. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    What Bible did the German speaking Americans use during the Revolutionary period of the US?
     
  8. BrianT

    BrianT
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    3,516
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't think that's true. KJV-only author Waite lists dozens (hundreds?) of English Bibles in existence before 1890. We find no evidence of anyone being *anything*-English-only, let alone KJV-only. Any Bible or group of Bibles were considered "the Holy Bible". *Usually*, people had the KJV in mind only because it was the most common, not because anyone held a KJV-only view about it.
     
  9. OldBibles

    OldBibles
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2002
    Messages:
    9
    Likes Received:
    0
    To fully understand why the KJV was the only "Holy Bible" for many years,I would offer the following:

    When the Church of England decided to
    replace/remove the Geneva Bible in 1568 (because of its inflammatory
    side notes calling the Pope the Antichrist) it did so by printing
    the Bishop's Bible (which was soundly rejected by the general
    population). So when another attempt was made with the printing of
    the KJV, the Anglican Church leaders and the Crown had justifiable
    concerns that the KJV would meet the same fate. So to insure the
    acceptance of the KJV the Crown subsidized its translation and
    writing as well as the printing thereof. When this did not get the
    desired results they outlawed printing of the Geneva. First by
    outlawing Bibles which did not contain the Apocrypha and then when
    that did not work, outlawing any Bible other than the KJV. But the
    Puritans/Pilgrims and associated folk still would not accept the KJV
    and that resulted in the printing of the "Pirate Version" in
    Amsterdam and Dort. I am told that in an effort to finally eliminate
    the use of the Geneva that the Geneva side notes were finally
    included in the KJV. This occurred about 1675 and of course they
    were edited to remove any references to the Pope and all other anti-
    Catholic notes. Also this gave the KJV the same "look" as the people
    expected from their Geneva.

    From this history it sounds to me as if the reason the KJV was the
    Bible of choice from 1700 until 1850 was purely political. Other
    versions were outlawed, the KJV had a "government" subsidy and the
    KJV was "dressed up" to look like the Geneva. It moved people's
    hearts because it was the only Bible they were allowed to read or
    have. I believe these tactics would have insured the success of most
    any Bible.

    You will also notice that printing of the KJV in any location other
    than the British Isles did not occur until after 1776. This also
    included the other Bible versions, so from this I believe you could
    blame America's Revolutionary War for the "dreaded" modern versions

    (1)In 1615 Archbishop Abbot prohibited the publishing of a Bible
    without an Apocrypha. 1599 Geneva Bibles did not contain the
    Apocrypha and Puritans did not use the Apocrypha. Therefore this law
    was directed at the publication of the Geneva Bible. (See references
    below)

    (2)Also in 1637 Archbishop Laud (by decree of the Star Chamber)
    prohibited the publication of the Geneva Bible, . Since archbishop's
    Abbot Prohibition did not eliminate the publication of the Geneva
    and smuggling of this Bible into England a second law was needed to
    curb its use. (See references below)

    (3) As a final measure to eliminate the use of the Geneva, side
    notes with objectionable content removed were added in the late
    1600s.

    References:

    1-The Reformation of the Bible: the Bible of the Reformation, by
    Hotchkiss and Price. Yale University Press 1996
    2-Bruce's The English Bible
    3-International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions
    4-Herbert's Historical catalog of printed Bibles by the British
    Foreign Bible Society 1968
     
  10. Scott J

    Scott J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    0
    I am amazed that the KJVO's haven't had anything to say in this thread. I expected this one to go twice as fast as the other one since anyone can voice their subjective view of historical events.
     
  11. Refreshed

    Refreshed
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Messages:
    901
    Likes Received:
    0
    Reasons Skeptics Should Consider Christianity, by Josh McDowell and Don Stewart:

    Jason :D

    [ February 13, 2003, 11:21 AM: Message edited by: Refreshed ]
     
  12. Scott J

    Scott J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    0
    Jason, What did McDowell and Stewart conclude about this issue?

    The fact that they reported someone's objections does not mean they agree per se with those objections. In the case of McDowell, I am fairly certain that he considers the critical texts superior to the MT and TR.
     
  13. Scott J

    Scott J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    0
    BTW Jason, what does that quote have to do with a historical proof for KJVOnlyism? Even Burgon was not KJVO. He favored the traditional (majority) texts which would include but not be limited to the various versions of the TR.
     
  14. Refreshed

    Refreshed
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Messages:
    901
    Likes Received:
    0
    McDowell and Stewart drew no conclusions, but reported it matter-of-factly. McDowell is definitely not KJV-only, but I do find him to be an accurate and trustworthy source.

    As to how this quote applies, Burgon objected to the alterations in the form of well-known passages being relegated to the margin or omitted completely in the RV. I haven't read Burgon's book, but I would take it that in his vociferous objection to the RV, he believed the KJV correctly included them. This is a main point of contention between MVers and KJVers, correct?

    Jason :D
     
  15. Scott J

    Scott J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    0
    No. I don't think so. If this were the case, those who are currently KJVO would have no objections to the use of the NKJV.

    Burgon, while opposing the methods of W-H, didn't believe that the KJV was perfect in the sense that modern KJVO's do (word for word perfection in translational choices).
     
  16. Doubting Thomas

    Doubting Thomas
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2003
    Messages:
    2,615
    Likes Received:
    6
    Scott, from what I've read, I think you are right. Burgon was probably not KJV-only or even TR-only, but did favor the Majority readings over the Critical Text.
     
  17. Refreshed

    Refreshed
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Messages:
    901
    Likes Received:
    0
    Are all the verses listed above included in the NKJV? I don't have a copy, but I'll try to find one on-line.

    Jason
     
  18. neal4christ

    neal4christ
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2002
    Messages:
    1,815
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes, they are. That is why I find the KJVO position peculiar (wierd). The NKJV does not 'delete' verses, yet they dislike it intensely. They will say that it uses the same manuscripts as the other MVs, but that is untrue. As for some change in wording, the NKJV is 9 times out of 10 more accurate to the Greek word being translated than is the KJV. I really do not understand the dislike for the NKJV from the KJVO camp. If it was a manuscript issue to them, they would have no problem with the NKJV, since it is the only modern version based on the TR, at least the only one I know of.

    Neal
     
  19. Scott J

    Scott J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    0
    www.biblegateway.com

    www.crosswalk.com has Bible study tools that you can use on-line including a parallel Bible function.

    The thing most KJVO's object to with the NKJV is its honesty. The NKJV cites variant readings in the margins rather than pretending that there is only one textual choice.

    I am fairly certain that variant readings were originally part of the KJV margin notes as well. None the less, the NKJV is condemned for this... one more example of a KJVO double standard.
     
  20. Pastor_Bob

    Pastor_Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2002
    Messages:
    3,461
    Likes Received:
    45
     

Share This Page

Loading...