NonKJV folk: History of KJV onlyism?

I wonder if the flood of various translations has contributed to KJVO'ism. I can't even count how many translations there are out there today and I have to wonder why? A new version will come out and then a year or two later an update of that same version will appear. What was wrong with the first one? It can be very confusing.
I own several different versions and consult each one of them from time to time, but lately I've been wondering why all the multitude of translations? What is the purpose?

 

There is onlyism in other cultures... anytime people have a favorite translation, onlyism is possible...

Onlyism has always been around.. The RC had Latin Vulgate onlyism...

My prediction for the future, if Christ doesn't return soon, is that KJVOnlyism will die out with the current generation... and within 80 yrs, other translations will be competing for the onlyist..

 

This is a quote from the Preface of the First Edition (1611) King James Bible The Translators to the Reader

This statement also makes it evident that the KJV translators were not KJVO themsleves.

The KJV is no stranger to revision.

The first set of revisions by the Church of England (CoE) to the 1611 text came out in 1613.

By 1769 the CoE had made hundreds of changes to the 1611 text.


HankD

 

There are some legitimate and some illegitimate reasons for many of the various translations--

1) There are some special needs groups (the deaf, children, ESL folks) that benefit from easier vocabulary versions.
2) There are some versions that have been created for the purpose of supporting a particular doctrine or position (even socio-political): examples are the "immersion" versions, the 'sacred names' versions, Mormon, RC, SDA, and JW versions. Many denominations and cults participate.
3) Many versions are simply bizarre and of the 'novelty' variety (Klingon, regional dialects, coded, allegedly 'humorous' ones, slang and 'street' language, etc.).
4) Some are based upon competing underlying original language texts (Greek and Hebrew 'critical' texts).
5) There is an entire range of translation philosophies (literal to very loose).
6) Some is pure marketing (could be greed, or could be recovering expenses).
7) Some are simply the result of some individual or group's desire to understand the scriptures at very intimate level.

 

You make some interesting references. Please elaborate: "immersion version". Who? When? Where? Why?

I am not a KJVO. But the King James translators did a commendable job in their objectivity, despite their regally biased commission to not translate contrary to existing Anglican doctrine. James I seems to have been mostly interested in removing the footnotes and marginal commentary.

Baptizo still means dip, plunge or immerse--in the Greek. Such a translation would certainly contradict the practice of pedobaptist sprinkling. Hence the transliteration: baptize. We have a similar arrangement with angel.

Ecclesia would make better sense: assembly, not church.

How we get Easter out of Paschal Feast is difficult for me. Paschal is Passover, a Jewish Holy Day. Easter is pagan, pagan, pagan in origin and practice. However, it is consistent with the paganization of Christianity, so-called, in the 4th century when Constantine the Great married the pope. Some of us seem to have goofy calendars.

Selah,

Bro. James

 

Your statement is a tad misleading.

The 1613 revision was just a correction of printing errors, for example - Matthew 6:3 stated "thy right doeth" in the 1611 version and was corrected to "thy right hand doeth" in the 1613. This is pretty much what most of the correction were throughout all of the changes.

Most of the so-called revisions occurred within the first 27 years, and some of the original translators worked on them.

As for the 1769 edition, the main purpose of it and the 1762 edition were to standardize spelling.

 

There were substantive changes. True not many, but a few.

This issue and those passages have been discussed several times over the years here on the BB.

I am on my way to San Diego and won't be back till Tuesday.

email me then and I'll get back in touch.

In the meantime if you want to look deeper into this issue and don't have a copy get the following book: A Textual History of the King James Bible by David Norton; Cambridge University Press, 2005.


God bless you Michelle.


HankD

 

The changes that later editors made to the text of the KJV involved more than just the correction of printing errors and the standardization of spelling. That is an inaccurate KJV-only claim. A number of renderings in the 1611 KJV that were later changed were the responsibility of the KJV translators themselves who had kept them from the Bishops' Bible of which the KJV was a revision.

Actually, the 1762 Cambridge and 1769 Oxford KJV editions did more than just "standardize spelling." They did not actually even finish standardizing the spelling since a number of spelling changes were made after that. Some changes in the text of the Oxford editions of the KJV were made after 1885, and some in the text of Cambridge editions of the KJV were still made after 1900.

 

I happen to own a 1611 copy of the KJV. I think if all these KJVO guys actually had a 1611 version in thier hot little hands the onlyism would take care of itself. They could read for themselves what the translators had to say about thier work. They could read the hundereds of side notes the translators thought to be important enough to include (to preclude misunderstang)to show possible different renderings. They did this by comittee and agreed together on thier inclusion. The spelling differences. Of course now we have over 520 outdated words. That gives us a lot to work on.

 

The CURRENT KJVO doctrine came from 7TH DAY ADVENTIST official Dr. Benjamin Wilkinson's 1930 book, Our Authorized Bible Vindicated. He wrote that book because of some squabbles within the SDA cult & not as an attempt to start a new doctrine. His book was heavily copied from by later authors such as "J. J. Ray"(whoever the heck that is/was), Dr. D. O. Fuller, Dr. Peter Ruckman, and others, to form the current doctrine, to be joined later by G. A. Riplinger, Grady, Moorman, etc. They all knew a Sensationalist cash cow when they saw one.

A common denominator for those KJVO worx is their inclusion of the "Psalm 12:7 thingie", a little doctrinette which first appeared in the 20th century in Wilkinson's book, proven WRONG by the AV1611 itself. This proves their dependence upon Wilkinson's book.

The whole doctrine is entirely MAN-MADE, without one quark of SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT; therefore it cannot be true.

 

Right on Roby, of course that would not be news to those who have been thru the KJVO wars on this forum. My guess is not one in 20 who claim the 1611 KJVO have ever seen a 1611 KJV translation.