NonKJV folk: History of KJV onlyism?

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by Ivon Denosovich, Jan 13, 2008.

  1. Ivon Denosovich

    Ivon Denosovich
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2007
    Messages:
    1,276
    Likes Received:
    0
    What happened to make the KJV almost worshipped (from my perspective, no offense intended if I have it wrong and you're the exception)? What are your predictions for the future of this movement?

    Btw, is this a global movement among English speaking peoples? Do Christians of other cultures have an equvialent of KJV onlyism?
     
  2. Amy.G

    Amy.G
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2006
    Messages:
    13,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    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?
     
  3. tinytim

    tinytim
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/tim2.jpg>

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2003
    Messages:
    11,250
    Likes Received:
    0
    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..
     
  4. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,154
    Likes Received:
    322
    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
     
  5. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,872
    Likes Received:
    3
    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.
     
  6. Bro. James

    Bro. James
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2004
    Messages:
    2,643
    Likes Received:
    15
    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
     
  7. rsr

    rsr
    Expand Collapse
    <b> 7,000 posts club</b>
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    10,074
    Likes Received:
    102
    In 1865, the American Bible Union (composed mostly of Baptists) released its completed New Testament, in which "baptize" was translated as "immerse," not simple transliterated.

    You can see an 1867 edition here:

    http://books.google.com/books?id=uy...can+Bible+Union+Version&ie=ISO-8859-1#PPA8,M1

    "In those days comes John the Immerser, preaching in the Wilderness of Judaea, ..."
     
  8. MichelleinPA

    MichelleinPA
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2008
    Messages:
    47
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  9. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,154
    Likes Received:
    322
    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
     
  10. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    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.
     
  11. Plain Old Bill

    Plain Old Bill
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2003
    Messages:
    3,657
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  12. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    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.
     
  13. Plain Old Bill

    Plain Old Bill
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2003
    Messages:
    3,657
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     

Share This Page

Loading...