1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

How the KJV became dominant

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by Scott J, Mar 16, 2004.

Top Posters
Page 1 of 2
  1. Scott J

    Scott J Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    1
    Faith:
    Baptist
    In another thread, the notion that it took state-church force for the KJV to be accepted as the standard was challenged. What are your thoughts?

    Here are the relevant portions of my post:



    Well basically you can disprove what I said. It should be easy enough. For instance, you can show that 17th century Baptists endorsed the KJV over the Geneva. You can show that... but here's a help for you:

    "However, what finally decided the issue in favor of the King James Bible had little to do with the relative merits of the two translations. After the death of King James, his son Charles I ascended to the throne. Charles appointed William Laud, who had been Bishop of London, to the see of Canterbury. One of Laud's first orders was to forbid the printing of the Geneva Bible in England to assure uniformity of Bibles. At first, this did not cause any difficulty because it was easy to procure copies from overseas. However, Laud issued an edict forbidding the importation of the Geneva Bible because it would cause economic hardship to British printers. The last printing of the Geneva Bible was done in Amsterdam in 1644.

    It is an irony of history that the popularity of the King James Bible was due to political and economic reasons as much as to the quality of the translation. However, there is one further irony that exists. Another name given to the King James Bible is the Authorized Version or "A.V." However, there is no record that any official authorization was ever given to the King James Version."

    http://www.solagroup.org/articles/historyofthebible/hotb_0015.html

    Here's another:
    "In 1615, Archbishop Abbott, a High Commission Court member, "forbade anyone to issue a Bible without the Apocrypha on pain of one year's imprisonment" (Moorman, Forever Settled, p. 183). This order was likely aimed at the Geneva Bible with its 1599 edition printed without the Apocrypha. Archbishop Laud can be linked to using the power of the High Commission Court to make the KJV the officially approved translation. Conant noted: "So pertinaciously, indeed, did the people cling ot it [the Geneva Bible], and so injurious was its influence to the interests of Episcopacy and of the 'authorized version,' that in the reign of Charles I, Archbishop Laud made the vending, binding, or importation of it [Geneva Bible] a high-commission crime" (English Bible, p. 367). Was it the power of this cruel High Commission Court that finally forced believers to give up their beloved and popular Geneva Bible?"
    http://www.tegart.com/brian/bible/kjvonly/rick/influence.html

    And another:
    "1633. Elzevir's 2nd Greek New Testament • William Laud (Romanist) is made Archbishop of Canterbury, begins to persecute Puritans. Forbids importation of the Geneva Bible."
    http://www.bible-researcher.com/history2.html

    Yet another:
    "Why did this Bible need to be smuggled into England? Because in 1615 Archbishop Abbot prohibited the publishing of a Bible without an Apocrypha, and these Bibles, almost without exception, did not include the Apocrypha, although it is listed in the contents. Puritans did not use the Apocrypha. Also in 1637 Archbishop Laud prohibited the publication of the Geneva Bible, by decree of the Star Chamber."
    http://www.ifla.org/IV/ifla64/051-132e.htm

    </font>[/QUOTE]
     
    #1 Scott J, Mar 16, 2004
  2. Scott J

    Scott J Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    1
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Paidagogos? Precepts? Anti-Alexandrian? Anyone?

    Wow... you guys are avoiding this like the plague... Kind of throws a wrench into your whole revisionists history scheme, huh?
     
    #2 Scott J, Mar 17, 2004
  3. Phillip

    Phillip <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    The Geneva Bible would have been just as popular if King James had sanctioned its printing for the masses and put the Royal (Copyright) on it.

    The first, always wins.

    King James had no control over the Geneva or Bishop's Bible and England wanted to maintain copyright control (not called "copyright" in those days--more of an order from the king....) This is the reason KJ ordered that a new translation be made, even though the King James translators borrowed liberally from the Geneva, Bishop's and even Vulgate, along with (as Ed mentioned) a 100 or so different manuscript sources.

    It became popular in America because there were many copies printed and it was easily available. Also, the Americans just LOVED the thought of violating Englands Copyright, because we declared our independence from them. Remember?
     
    #3 Phillip, Mar 17, 2004
  4. Scott J

    Scott J Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    1
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Phillip, Not being argumentative but you need to check out the links I provided. If they aren't sufficient then just type "Geneva Bible Archbishop Laud" into your search engine.

    The Geneva didn't die of its own accord. It was outlawed by the church-state of England more than 100 years prior to the Revolution for the express purpose of making the KJV the standard. At the time, this law would have governed England and all of its colonies... to include the US.

    The short of it is that the Geneva Bible would have remained MORE popular than the KJV with or without the king's sanctioning... if the Anglicans/Royals not hated it so badly that they made it illegal.
     
    #4 Scott J, Mar 17, 2004
  5. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    30,285
    Likes Received:
    507
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Why the "hatred" for the Geneva Bible by KJ et al?
     
    #5 Dr. Bob, Mar 17, 2004
  6. Anti-Alexandrian

    Anti-Alexandrian Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2002
    Messages:
    764
    Likes Received:
    0
    Then WHY didn't the KJB slip off into obscurity?

    Why is the KJB the one Bible that ALL "bibles"(200+ conflicting authorities)compare themselves to??


    And why hasn't the Geneva(which is also the word of God) ousted the KJB,seeing how the "Anglicans/Royals" hasn't had the say so now for years???


    Shucks,Bible relativist,Biblical gnostics went as far to throw up a smoke-screen to divert the attention away from themselves,and dubbed it "KJBO"....

    Not GBO.....


    No,some of us have to make a living.


    Care to SPLAIN??
     
    #6 Anti-Alexandrian, Mar 17, 2004
  7. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    You appear to be attributing
    what you do to everyone else.
    I'm sure that had a name in psychology?

    [​IMG]
     
    #7 Ed Edwards, Mar 17, 2004
  8. Scott J

    Scott J Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    1
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Did you read and think about what I posted? By 1700 the KJV had been established as "the standard" by force of law on everyone living under the English monarch... which included just about all English speakers.

    The KJV will eventually "slip off into obscurity" in the same way the Latin Vulgate and Wycliffe's translation did. English will change whether you like it or not. In 100 years or so, the only people left using the KJV will be people determined to stick to tradition regardless of whether they understand God's Word or not.

    For the same reason that the KJV was compared to versions that went before it. When something new comes out, it is typically compared to what is old.

    BTW, MV translators seldom compare their translations to the KJV in a qualitative sense... except for maybe the NKJV. They compare their work to the texts it came from and scholarly review of the translation choices.



    By the time freedom was established, anyone who remembered or longed for the Geneva would have been dead for years. A pity too. The Geneva was a Bible independent of state-church authority- a rarity for that era.

    Strange, you all find time to answer some things but avoid others.
     
    #8 Scott J, Mar 18, 2004
  9. robycop3

    robycop3 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    14,362
    Likes Received:
    668
    Faith:
    Baptist
    A_A:Then WHY didn't the KJB slip off into obscurity?

    Looks as if it's on its way now-the NIV now outsells it.
     
    #9 robycop3, Mar 18, 2004
  10. Scott J

    Scott J Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    1
    Faith:
    Baptist
    No other takers?

    KJVO's are fond of talking about the history and tradition of the KJV yet won't even explain these simple facts.

    A-A said:
    [/qb] Tell you what A-A. If I were given power over the press for the next 150 years, I guarantee that I could make the NIV the universally accepted standard version and all new versions after that would be compared to it... and I don't even consider the NIV a good translation.

    There would probably even be a NIVonly movement when new translations began to appear again.
     
    #10 Scott J, Mar 23, 2004
  11. By God's Grace

    By God's Grace New Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2002
    Messages:
    28
    Likes Received:
    0
    Someone asked why the hatred for the Geneva Study Bible back then. It was hated, because it's notes were solidly God centered...not man centered. Tell me any secular king that will give up "control" of anything.

    BTW, I just purchased The Study of the Reformation Bible ( it is currently at Lifeway). While I do not like it because it is in the NIV (I prefer the ESV ) the study notes are invaluable ... as long as you don't fall into the infant baptism references. It is kinda like Grudem Systematic Theology. While I don't agree with everything he writes....he is a lot easier to understand than James P. Boyce.

    Hopefulle the The Study of the Reformation Bible will be out in ESV in the future.
     
    #11 By God's Grace, Mar 26, 2004
  12. TC

    TC Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 7, 2003
    Messages:
    2,244
    Likes Received:
    10
    Faith:
    Baptist
    RC Sproul also edited a Reformation Study Bible which is availiable in the NKJV. It has excellent notes and is full of reformation history from what I can tell. I don't have one yet, but it may be the next study Bible I get.
     
    #12 TC, Mar 26, 2004
  13. Keith M

    Keith M New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,024
    Likes Received:
    0
    I purchased a Reformation Study Bible in the NKJV last fall while in Knoxville, TN. I exchanged it 2 days later as the Bible notes were pro-predestination, a teaching I do not agree with even one little bit. But that's another topic...
     
    #13 Keith M, Mar 27, 2004
  14. robycop3

    robycop3 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    14,362
    Likes Received:
    668
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Dr. Bob:Why the "hatred" for the Geneva Bible by KJ et al?

    KJ hated the GB because of its numerous footnotes, especially those which denied the Divine rights of kings, encouraging revolt against a tyrant.
     
    #14 robycop3, Mar 28, 2004
  15. skanwmatos

    skanwmatos New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2003
    Messages:
    1,314
    Likes Received:
    0
    James I was no tyrant. He was bound by the limitations of the Magna Carta, which was signed by King John in 1215 and bound all later Monarchs of England. James I disliked the Geneva Bible because of the way its notes addressed ecclesiology. James stated "No Bishops, there is no King." If was for primarily that reason, which he deemed to by antimonarchial, that he agreed to the one request at Hampton Court.
     
    #15 skanwmatos, Mar 28, 2004
  16. Scott J

    Scott J Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    1
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Edward Wightman and numerous others that suffered persecution during James' reign would probably have had a significantly different opinion than yours.
     
    #16 Scott J, Mar 28, 2004
  17. Jim Ward

    Jim Ward New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2001
    Messages:
    448
    Likes Received:
    0
    And the lies continue and continue.


    I guess it's true, that once you start practicing lies, you become a liar.
     
    #17 Jim Ward, Mar 28, 2004
  18. Orvie

    Orvie New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2001
    Messages:
    649
    Likes Received:
    0
    Do you know this by experience? :rolleyes: :eek: :rolleyes:
     
    #18 Orvie, Mar 28, 2004
  19. robycop3

    robycop3 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    14,362
    Likes Received:
    668
    Faith:
    Baptist
    A_A:Then WHY didn't the KJB slip off into obscurity?

    Because no authorities in any English nation outlawed it or seriously fought against it.

    Why is the KJB the one Bible that ALL "bibles"(200+ conflicting authorities)compare themselves to??

    Because the KJVOs have made such an issue of it.Ihe KJVO says the KJV is perfect, inerrant, etc. & the anti-KJVO proves him wrong.


    And why hasn't the Geneva(which is also the word of God) ousted the KJB,seeing how the "Anglicans/Royals" hasn't had the say so now for years???

    Because once the damage was done, it was almost impossible to undo, especially when there were few, if any, printers left who had any plates from which to print GBs. The KJV was easy to obtain, while the GB was not, especially after 1644.


    Shucks,Bible relativist,Biblical gnostics went as far to throw up a smoke-screen to divert the attention away from themselves,and dubbed it "KJBO"....

    Not GBO.....

    Actually, it was a group of people-Christians of many denoms- faced with a flood of rhetoric declaring any English BV but the KJV not valid, but, finding there's no evidence to support such rhetoric, concluded it to be a myth, and placed an acronym-KJVO-upon the whole set of incorrect assertions and false doctrines, for easy ID & quick reference.

    There were most likely more than one "GBO" in the 1600s, but they soon had the weight of the law, as well as a lack of copies of the GB, against them. They never were as organized, nor had so many authors publishing "GBO" material as the current KJVO myth has. And, they had much-less of an argument to proclaim in favor of the GB than does the modern KJVO. The KJV was not that much different from the GB except in having a lot less footnotes, & its English was contemporary, as was that of the GB.

    But the "kicker" was the fact that the authorities of England officially turned against the GB. This effectively "killed off" the GB.
     
    #19 robycop3, Mar 28, 2004
  20. robycop3

    robycop3 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    14,362
    Likes Received:
    668
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Skanwmatos:James I was no tyrant. He was bound by the limitations of the Magna Carta, which was signed by King John in 1215 and bound all later Monarchs of England. James I disliked the Geneva Bible because of the way its notes addressed ecclesiology. James stated "No Bishops, there is no King." If was for primarily that reason, which he deemed to by antimonarchial, that he agreed to the one request at Hampton Court.

    The historical record of KJ's insistence, and indeed, obsession with the "Divine right of kings"-that he was king by RIGHT and inheritance- is beyond dispute, as is his fiscal irresponsibility & his constant quarrels with Parliament.

    He introduced the "whipping boy" to us. Based upon his "divine rights" policy, he didn't think it proper for a lowly commoner(his son Charles' teacher) to punish a prince who was prince by Divine will & who also enjoyed his dad's "Divine rights". Therefore, he had a prince not of his royal lineage, William Murray, brought in to be punished when Charles misbehaved; thus Murray became a "whipping boy". Is this not the act of a person not very bright about certain things, if not an outright tyrant?

    In 1618, he had Sir Walter Raleigh beheaded at the request of the Spanish. And he was VERY tyrannical with the Virginia Company, the people behind the American colony of Virginia.

    He extended the power of the Star Chamber to include religious matters. And the High Commission Court "justices" served only if he allowed them. Among them was Archbishop Bancroft, Lancelot Andrewes,& another prominent AV translator, George Abbott. The tyranny & atrocities practiced by this court are well-documented, and KJ exercised considerable inf;uence over its workings.

    While KJ may not have been a paragon of righteousness, it doesn't really matter in the versions discussion, any more than the lesbianism of Virginia Mollenkott matters in the discussions concerning the NIV. Really, any discussions about the character of any Bible translator(s) is a waste of time, as God could have used Caligula to write or translate Scripture if He'd so chosen.
     
    #20 robycop3, Mar 28, 2004
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Page 1 of 2
Loading...