"KJVO" Beginnings

I do not find that "not-entirely-Byzantine" clearly substantiates the prior comment of "very much like Aleph & B" (is that an exact quote from Miller?). The "not-entirely-Byzantine" description portrays a document that is probably mostly-Byzantine, while "very much like Aleph & B" conveys a predominate similarity to Alexandrian-types.

For example, if a mutt is 'not-entirely-Beagle' it does not necessarily correlate that the canine is therefore 'very much like a St. Bernard'. It isn't beneficial to mention 'Beagle' at all if 'Beagle' doesn't describe the dog's primary characteristics.

 

The gent do make a coupla' good points, here.

Ed

 

I've always heard that KJVO started with the Apostle Paul. What? Is that not right? :wavey:


JDale

 

It is not my desire to battle over semantics. Miller's exact quote is:

Although I do not agree with Miller's conclusions, he seems to be knowledgeable regarding the witnesses. I assure you, friend, I was not attempting to be disingenuous in any fashion.

 

Maybe the Paul who lives down the street but not the Paul in the Bible!!!

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

 

Oh yeah...I know that guy! I ordered him an exact replica of the "1611 Authorized KJV" from CBD. His attempts at acutally reading it were...fascinating. :-D

JDale

 

Nor mine. But this should let you know that I carefully read and think about what is posted.

I don't really know Miller, and the topic of ancient manuscripts will quickly be above my base of knowledge.

I was already confident of your integrity and that is, in part, why I continue to have discussions with you.

 

And immediately after the publication of the 1611 AV numerous problems were reported and in 1613 the first revision of the AV took place. Not a major revision but a revision none the less.

This IMO is to the credit of the CoE who persued the purification of their work for 2 centuries to bring it to as close of a state of human perfection as possible.

The bigger problem is that the AV was written using a somewhat formal and shakespearean version of the English language between the Jacobean and Elizabethan periods.

Those English periods along with their beauty and style are gone forever.

IMO, We simply must face the fact that the AV is not the "koine" English of today.

God's original of the New Testament message was written in a common language to the common man. That is the meaning of "koine" and IMO it's important to preserve that element of the Word of God as well as the words themselves.

KJV Acts 17:30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:

NKJV Acts 17:30 "Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent,


HankD​

 

Would you mean edition rather than a revision?

I remeber the OP asked for opinions to be not discussed.

It is no problem for anyone with a good dictionary, which, btw, applies to all of the English language.

You wish! Better go talk this over with your English professor.

True, but we can understand more of the impacted meaning by the KJB than most modern versions, as a whole.

Poor Chinese.

The latter rendering of God's view of sin is incorrect. The LORD hadn't "overlooked" any man's sin. It's a man's sin that separates him from God.

It may be an exhaustive defining of "wink" vs "overlook" would be best.

The beginning of "KJVO"? It was the first time some one wanted to label some one in a condescending manner.

Truly, as men change the meanings of words, there was no real "conflict" in regards to the KJB being the Bible for any day.

Men didn't speak like the KJB was written, ever, and no one who is saved has that much problem understanding what the Spirit saith. and on that hand, those who are saved can see problems with the newer renderings.:tonofbricks:

 

Sorry, Sal, but the English of 1611 is in a style no longer used. The KJV was written for readers of its day, same as newer versions are for modern readers. To say God's word in English is frozen in the KJV is to say God retired in 1611.

Now...what sayest thou about the beginnings of KJVO?

 

Whomever: //This IMO is to the credit of the CoE who persued
the purification of their work for 2 centuries to bring it to
as close of a state of human perfection as possible.//

Salamander: //I remeber the OP asked for opinions to be not discussed.//

It is a bad day when a person gets slapped around for
attempting to give a compliment

Originally Posted by HankD
And immediately after the publication of the 1611 AV numerous problems were reported and in 1613 the first revision of the AV took place. Not a major revision but a revision none the less.

Salamander: //Would you mean edition rather than a revision?//

I think he means 'revision'.
where 'revision' means 'version' or 'edition' - i.e. a change
has been made in something.

VERSION: a change of translators
EDITION: a change of spelling or formating

BTW, I also consider it a VERSION when people drop
out the Translator Margin Notes.
This makes many types of KJV1769 Editions
really KJV1769 Versions.

Salemander: //The beginning of "KJVO"? It was the first time some one wanted to label some one in a condescending manner.//

I agree. It was the first time someone wanted to call
a Bible NOT A BIBLE and it's owner PROBABLY LOST.


" ... those who are saved can see problems with the newer renderings ... "

Tee Hee. Those who are saved can see problems with
the old renderings INCLUDING the fact that English has
changed lo these last 238 years (1769-2007) but the
KJV1769 Edition remains constant.
How can the Inerrant Written Word of God be
preserved without changing in into the langauge of the
readers/hearers?

 

We need to remember that long before there was a KJVO movement, the 1611 KJV was "the new kid on the block." It was once a "modern version." The translators of the 1611 KJV didn't think they had the version to end all versions. So if the KJVO movement didn't start with the KJV translators, then where did it really start?

 

Interesting observation there, brother Ed (from page #1).

 

It started with the Hampton Court Conference in 1604...

"Could never yet see a Bible well translated in English; but I think that, of all, that of Geneva is the worst. I wish some special pains were taken for an uniform translation, which should be done by the best learned men in both Universities, then reviewed by the Bishops, presented to the Privy Council, lastly ratified by the Royal authority, to be read in the whole Church, and none other." - King James VI & I

"That a translation be made of the whole Bible, as consonant as can be to the original Hebrew and Greek; and this to be set out and printed, without any marginal notes, and only to be used in all churches of England in time of divine service." - Hampton Court Resolution

"Truly (good Christian Reader) we never thought from the beginning, that we should need to make a new Translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one,...but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principal good one, not justly to be excepted against, that hath been our endeavor." - Translator Note to the Reader​

 

Well, we all know the marginal notes idea failed, as the KJV was full of them.

I wonder how a single, government imposed and mandated Bible would go down today?

 

There were occasional "KJVOs" beginning in 1611, but they were scattered here & there, individuals who didn't found any doctrine. The CURRENT KJVO thingie started with Wilkinson's book & was firmly established as a movement by later authors who "discovered" Wilkinson's book & dishonestly copied from it. Using the power of modern media, they were able to hawk their wares throughout the English-speaking world.

The controversy in the 1880s over the RV in England apparently was little-noticed outside England & was no big deal among the general public there.

I believe we've established that KJVO has a totally MAN-MADE origin, is ascriptural, and that a streak if DISHONESTY is found throughout its literature. And I don't think it's a bit pleasing to GOD.

 

King James was against the margin notes in the Geneva because those notes often stood against the monarchy.

"And only to be used in all churches of England" shows the goal was not to make a universal translation for all English-speaking people, but to have a Bible version for use in the Church of England.

"Out of many good ones, one principal good one" does not indicate the desire to translate a Bible to end all Bibles, but simply credits the fact that several different versions were used in the translation process that led to the 1611 KJV.

 

That's a different conversation.

The quote I used was intended to point out he desired a "uniform translation"..."to be read in the whole church and none other".

England, at the time, represented the English-speaking people. The Church of England was the primary church of this people. The intent was to take many English Bibles and turn them into one English Bible for the English speaking peoples.

This indicates the desire to take many and turn them into one. If the Hampton Court Conference hadn't happened and the spirit of these people were alive today, they would be endevouring to find a way to take 200+ English Bibles and turn them into 1, as they did to take 6 English Bibles and turn them into 1. It was not their desire to create this work and have the Anglicans continue to read from the Bishops and the Puritans to read from the Geneva and everyone pick the Bible that worked for them. Rather, it was their intent to make a uniform translation that would settle the disparate Bible issues.

You don't have to appreciate it or like it but the "movement" to have a single English translation of the Bible began 403 years ago, was started by a puritan named John Rainolds, was Authorized by a King and was blessed by the King of Kings.

 

And the poor Separatists and Non-Conformists had their Bible, in essence, outlawed.

 

A great quote from William Tyndale is included in this blurb, which also has a good summary:

"Amen! And preach on, Brother Tyndale, who being dead, yet speaks!"

The point has been made [ad nausea! (!~) ]that the KJV was not considered a "be all; end all" version by the translators who did it. How come some today think they knew more about the real effect and intentions of the translators, than did the translators, themselves???

Ed

(!~) Language Cop says that "ad nausea" is not a typo! This obvious point has been stated so many times, that one should be sick of having to hear it repeated over and over!