"Self Conceited Brethren"

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by Ulsterman, Jun 15, 2008.

  1. Ulsterman

    Ulsterman
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2002
    Messages:
    1,048
    Likes Received:
    0
    I was watching a history of the British monarchy today, and the succession of rule from Queen Elizabeth I and James VI of Scotland (James I of England). Elizabeth sought to have a middle ground Protestantism that satisfied both the Romish traditions of High Church Anglicanism and the more fundamentalist Puritanism. When James I came to the throne, the Puritans had hoped his Presbyterian upbringing in Scotland would influence his religious views to the point that he would rid the land of the excesses of High Church Anglicanism and adopt a simpler, more non conformist form of Protestantism as the preferred practice. However, they were to be disappointed, for not only did James maintain the religious patterns of Elizabeth's reign, but he dispensed with the Geneva Bible, which the Puritans preferred, and authorised a new translation which would be more middle ground, i.e, the King James (or Authorised) Version.

    What interested me was that in the dedicatory to the KJV, reference is made to these theological extremes by the statement, "So that if, on the one side,we shall be traduced by Popish Persons at home or abroad, who therefore will malign us because we are poor instruments to make God's Holy Truth to be yet more and more known unto the people, whom they desire to keep in ignorance and darkness; or if, on the other side, we shall be maligned by selfconceited Brethren, who run their own ways, and give liking unto nothing, but what is framed by themselves, and hammered on their anvil; we may rest secure, supported within by the truth and innocency of a good conscience, having walked the ways of simplicity and integrity, as before the Lord."

    The thought occurred to me, (and I speak now as one who loves and uses the KJV, and no other version), that some of my brethren still fit the bill of those who were described as "self conceited" in 1611. By that I mean, they see absolutely nothing of good in any other version, instantly dispel any attempt to revise the KJV, and separate from and repudiate other brethren who take a different view. When I was first saved, (1979), those who held to the KJV did so as a matter of preference and were not nearly so belligerent or militant about the matter as so many are today. We did not make the issue of Bible translation a matter of separation (I still don't). It seems that with the passing of time KJV folk have been bullied into a militancy that "gives liking unto nothing, but what is framed by themselves." And I find it strange, from a historical perspective that this militancy is most often manifest by the extremes of fundamentalism in upholding a Bible which was intended, from the first, to hold the middle ground between non-conformist Protestantism and Romanism. Today we might even describe it, (dare I say it) as a medieval new evangelicalism of sorts. I wonder where today's KJV only fundamentalists would have stood in King James' day? In all likelihood not with the new fangled version authorised by the new monarch. I wondered if we are in danger (those who love and use the Authorised Version) of only approving those things which are "hammered on [our own] anvil, and in danger, thereby, of self conceit.

    Now, I do not wish this to become an anti KJVO slanging match, because I am pro KJV. But I would like to ask my brethren a simple question. Given the historic background of this beloved version, in all honesty, do you think you would have given it your support in 1611?
     
  2. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    If any believers held doctrinal views similar to fundamental Baptists in that day, they would not likely have given their support to the new 1611 KJV. The Baptists of that day were persecuted by King James I and the Church of England. It would be more likely that the Baptists of that day would have kept using the 1560 Geneva Bible.
     
  3. Ulsterman

    Ulsterman
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2002
    Messages:
    1,048
    Likes Received:
    0
    That's my point, and it shows the irony of the fact that a Bible translation which would have been initially rejected by Baptists and fundamentalists should now have an entire dogma developed around it by the spiritual descendents of that same group. I wonder if, say in 300 years, will the argument be NKJVO, or, heaven forbid, NIVO. The point I am making is that those in the KJV camp need to be perhaps less jaundiced in their defence of the version, and to be open to the possibility of a modern version coming along which employs the same translational standards as the KJV, but supercedes the Authorised Version in accuracy and language.
     
  4. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    Thank you for well thought out and balanced perspective. I have considered this in the light of a possible GVO movement in 1611. After all, with the mistrust most "fundamentalists" have for government, would they have supported a government sponsored version?
     
  5. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    KJVO, and for that matter, ANY other "One-Version-Only" doctrines are entirely MAN-MADE, and are not supported by any legitimate Bible version. I fave said many times there's nothing wrong with one's using only the KJV or any other one version outta PERSONAL PREFERENCE, fine, but when one starts telling me I'm using the wrong version, or I shouldn't be using multiple versions, that's when a clash begins.

    While every version has its fan club, KJVO is by far the most prevalent one-version doctrine going. However, it's easy to prove it wrong. First, it has absolutely NO SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT in the KJV itself; second, its advocates seemta be on a never-ending search for material to support their view (Case-In-Point: the one-antlered roe deer in Italy some of them tried to use to say unicorns existed!), or, failing to find any such material within a reasonable amounta time, INVENT something! They remain on this quest because they have no solid, unchanging facts from GOD with which to sustain their doctrine. That's where their conceit & stubbornness comes in. They just cannot bring themselves to discard that doctrine as incorrect & not from GOD.
     
  6. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    While James was king in Scotland, Benjamin Brook noted that James had declared in the general assembly at Edinburgh, with his hands lifted to heaven, "that he praised God that he was born to be the king of the purest kirk [church] in the world." "As for our neighbor kirk of England," said he, "their service is an evil-said mass in English." James also said "that the Book of Common Prayer was the English mass book, and that the surplice, copes, and ceremonies were outward badges of popery" (Lives of the Puritans, Vol. 1, p. 60). W. H. Stowell also pointed out that James "had made strong declarations in Scotland of his adherence to the Presbyterian discipline in which he had been educated, publicly avowing his gratitude that he belonged to the purest church in the world, and his purpose to maintain its principles as long as he lived" (History of the Puritans in England, p. 222). Therefore, the Puritans had welcomed James as the new king of England and had high hopes that he agreed with many of their views. They soon learned that James had either lied in Scotland or compromised his own professed beliefs in order to promote the teachings of the state church in England. P. Hume Brown noted that in Scotland "the ministers perfectly understood that James was ready to change his faith the moment he should find it expedient" (History of Scotland, II, p. 192).
     
  7. Bob Alkire

    Bob Alkire
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2001
    Messages:
    3,134
    Likes Received:
    0
    The KJV is my main Bible today and I use the ASV1901 some and the NASB a little less. But I started off with the KJV and while at one of the schools I went to, the ASV 1901 was the main Bible because Allva J. Mc Clain and others their used it, and I learned to love it too. But if I had been around when the KJV came out in GB, I would not have used it. How many folks got into trouble for using Bibles and printing other than the KJV back then in England, many!!!

    If I went to another Bible, I would be a lot like Charles Stanley, he preached out of the NASB but so often when he quotes, he quotes the KJV and he has been using the NASB for what 25 to 30 years, I think I would be like that because I have used the KJV for so long, when I quote a verse it would come out as it is in the KJV.
     
  8. Bob Alkire

    Bob Alkire
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2001
    Messages:
    3,134
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't think you are being anti anything but being very honest. In the IFB churches over here in the USA back in the 40's, 50's and 60's most of the folks used the KJV or the ASV 1901 but they didn't take to the RSV due to the OT of that Bible, many didn't believe they were true to the Hebrew. Fundamentalist over here like John R. Rice, J. Vernon McGee and Bob Jones, Sr. were never KJO. One should read John R. Rice's book,"Our God-Breathed Book The Bible" and they would see he wasn't. I never hear of the KJO movement untill the 70's. The KJO deal is bad doctrine and has caused a lot of harm to the Church.
     
  9. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ulsterman: //Now, I do not wish this to become an anti KJVO slanging match, because I am pro KJV. But I would like to ask my brethren a simple question. Given the historic background of this beloved version, in all honesty, do you think you would have given it your support in 1611?//

    No, there was a Good English Bible in 1611 already

    My Geneva Bible, 1560 Edition [paper] is good (while the margine comentary seems old and sedate) - it was good enough for Baptists of the day. The Geneva Bible, 1560 Edition was good enough for Paul & Silas so it is good enough for me!

    My Geneva Bible, 1599 Edition [electronic from e-sword] is good (no margine comentary). It was good enough for Baptists in 1599 (though not every electronic then) -- it is good enough Ed The Baptist in 2008! :thumbs:

    -
     
  10. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    Given my opinion of our govt. today, I wouldn't trust any govt-sponsored version now. I believe the British of 400 years ago held their monarchy/ Parliament in more esteem than they do now, let alone as compared with what most Americans think of their govt. now!

    Salvation comes by FAITH IN JESUS CHRIST, and not by govt. decree or sponsorship.
     
  11. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,158
    Likes Received:
    322
    And the crowning irony of the KJVO reasoning is that the KJV translators themselves provided the best reason for a proliferation of translations:

    HankD
     
    #11 HankD, Jun 29, 2008
    Last edited: Jun 29, 2008
  12. EdSutton

    EdSutton
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sounds to me like James I would have made a great politician for today, frankly!

    Ed
     
  13. Keith M

    Keith M
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,024
    Likes Received:
    0
    It's hard to say what we would have done in 1611. Although I love the KJV, I am strongly anti-KJVO. Because of that, I may have readily accepted the "new Bible" of 1611. On the other hand, I have little faith or trust in our government. And because of that I may have utterly rejected the 1611 KJV. Our thinking in that day might have been different if we were raised in that time rather than if we were transported back to that time. But of course neither is the case, so we can't really say with a certainty what our acceptance level would have been.
     
  14. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,404
    Likes Received:
    328
    It took you seven sentences to say :"I don't know.":laugh:
     

Share This Page

Loading...