Why I believe that using the KJV is not a compromise

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by Mrs.Woogie, Feb 16, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Mrs.Woogie

    Mrs.Woogie
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2006
    Messages:
    15
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hello there. I wanted to start another thread because several were shut down due to interuptions. I wanted to post a rebuttle answer to the question posed regarding whether IFB were compromisers because some use the KJV which appartly was not used by the pilgrims.


    It is true that our pilgrim fathers used the Geneva Bible or the Great Bible, not the King James. Why? You must understand that the number of KJB weren't available to most of our forefathers. The pioneers/pilgrims sailed in 1607 AD (Jamestown) and 1611 AD (Plymouth) the KJB wasn't translated until 1611. Kind of hard to use a Bible that wasn't printed. Also, the final edition for the King James wasn't completed until 1769 AD. Just a few years before our American Revolution. By that time, the "Crown" of England was loosing it's strong hold on the Americas. Also, there isn't much difference from the Geneva Bible, the Great Bible, and the King James. All of them used a large portion of William Tyndale's translation of 1525 AD. (If I'm not mistaken, the KJB has more than 90% of Tyndale's New Testament in it and the King James used 95% of the Geneva Bible.) However, ALL of these English translation used the Greek Text, "Textus Receptus" for their major proof texts. The [snipped] Greek text "Westcott and Hort" wasn't printed yet.(It was printed in @1880) In so doing, "the King" didn't alter the majority of the text, it made the King James text thorough and "approved" to be read by everyone. It is true that the King James was not widely accepted, but again, I point out that the King of England was also the head of a Church. The Pilgrims were proponents of religious freedom and didn't want anything to do with the King.. even if it meant not using "his" Bible. Later, America had claimed her independence, the King of England had no hold on them, other Bibles were out of print, (last printing of the Geneva Bible was 1644) therefore we were free to use whatever Bible we chose to use. Truth is... most Americans didn't even own a Bible until the early 1730's or 1740's, the first Great Awakening. By that time, the "stigma" had "worn" off of the King James, it was printed because of it's superior scholastic thoroughness and accuracy. And thus you have Americans using the Authorized Version for about 250 years from 1680's to 1930's. Was the King James the first Bible for the Americans? NO. the Geneva Bible was, but that doesn't mean we can't use the King James.
    Now, was it a compromise or is it a compromise to use the King James when it was translated under the reign of the head of the Church of England? NO. The name "King James" isn't inspired by God. The Word of God is. If you want to throw out every sinner whom God used to write the Bible in any language, you wouldn't have a Bible. Keep in mind we are talking about God's Word, not Billy Graham's evangelistic policy. God will preserve His word and He will do that through impure men. (it is the only kind He has to work with). Paul was a persecutor of the early church and yet God used him to write most of the New Testament. I guess since Paul was a murderer, we shouldn't use his writings. Nonsense! Most people who are trying to get someone to "put away" their King James Bible, are the very people who are convicted by it's divinely preserved, Holy Spirit's conviction of their sin! To compare the Bible with Billy Graham's ecumenical policy is absurd!!

    These are not my words, but I agree with it 100%
    W

    [ February 16, 2006, 12:15 PM: Message edited by: C4K ]
     
  2. Petrel

    Petrel
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2005
    Messages:
    1,408
    Likes Received:
    0
    Oops! Petrel's Law confirmed in the opening post. . . I find debates are much more productive when I don't assign motivation to my opponent, and instead concentrate on addressing the facts. You were doing great until this point!

    And no one is trying to get anyone to put away the KJV, some of us just object to the idea that the KJV is the only appropriate version to use.
     
  3. Boanerges

    Boanerges
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2005
    Messages:
    591
    Likes Received:
    0
    While we are on the subject of Billy Grahm, what about the Billy Grahm signature edition of the Message? :confused: How about Billy Grahm's endorsement of the Passion movie being Biblically accurate? :eek:
     
  4. Mrs.Woogie

    Mrs.Woogie
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2006
    Messages:
    15
    Likes Received:
    0
    Oops! Petrel's Law confirmed in the opening post. . . I find debates are much more productive when I don't assign motivation to my opponent, and instead concentrate on addressing the facts. You were doing great until this point!

    And no one is trying to get anyone to put away the KJV, some of us just object to the idea that the KJV is the only appropriate version to use.
    </font>[/QUOTE]OK, I will agree to that. Shall I edit it for your sake and others? Give me some slack for I am a newbie.

    W
     
  5. Mrs.Woogie

    Mrs.Woogie
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2006
    Messages:
    15
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sorry, but my time has already lapsed. If the mods feel it nessacary to remove the above statement feel free to.

    W
     
  6. Petrel

    Petrel
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2005
    Messages:
    1,408
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm sure they won't, or a lot of other posts would be edited. :D

    That's all right with me, I prefer light-handed moderating.
     
  7. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,805
    Likes Received:
    78
    I don't think anyone here actually thinks using the KJV is a compromise.

    Your choice of translation does not make you a compromiser - full stop.

    And I agree, no one wants anyone to put away theit KJV Bibles.
     
  8. Faith alone

    Faith alone
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2005
    Messages:
    727
    Likes Received:
    0
    Mrs. Woogie,

    I have not followed those other threads, and I think that any Bible which you actually read is a good one... if you use it. But I would like to briefly comment on the history:

    The settlers at Jamestown in 1607 were members of the Anglican faith, the official Church of England, and were not Pilgrims. They went there for economic reasons, not religious.

    However it was due to severe religious persecution that the Pilgrims left England and settled in Holland, where there was more religious freedom. In England only the Church of England was endorsed, and those who tried to follow their own ideas were imprisoned and even executed. Spies snuck into their meetings and later gave reports which indicted the leaders and active participants.

    But after a few years the Pilgrims felt that their children were being corrupted by the liberal Dutch lifestyle and were losing their English heritage. There were also attempts to reach them even in Holland. News of the success of the English Colony in Jamestown, Virginia led them to leave Holland and settle in the New World.

    The Pilgrims were dissenters from the Church of England and established the Puritan and Separatist Churches. (They are actually somewhat different views - the Separatists wanted to separate from the Church of England, while the Pilgrims wanted to bring about change - to purify the Anglican Church.)

    The 1611 KJV was available to the Puritans and Separatists. But they rejected it because it was to be revision of the Bishop's Bible which was initiated by King Henry VIII, who had established the Church of England and insisted that all worship in that Church alone, which was not far removed from a Catholic style church. The Pope would not consent to King Henvy VIII divorcing his wife and marrying his mistress. He did it anyway and removed England from RCC control, establishing the Church of England.

    But the Geneva Bible had become the main Bible for over 75 years and was essentially a revision of Tyndale's work, as was the Bishop's Bible and the KJV. (Yes, the KJV is a revision, not a new translation.)

    The Geneva Bible was the popular Bible of the people of England. The Bishops' Bible never really gained such popularity. King James was approached about funding a revision of the Bishop's Bible, to hopefully replace the Geneva Bible. Now the King James Bible was very much influenced by the Geneva Bible as well as the Bishop's Bible. The translators made a comment in their preface about not striving to make a bad Bible good, but to make a good Bible better. Since King James so opposed and persecuted those who would not make the Anglican Church their church, naturally the Pilgrims and Separatists rebelled against the King James Bible when it was published in 1611.

    They were quite vocal in opposition to it. And the Geneva Bible was the Bible of choice of the early Pilgrims when they came to Plymouth Rock in 1620 and remained so for many years. And I must insist that the KJV was available to them. But eventually, as more and more settlers brought the KJV with them to America, the KJV overtook the Geneva Bible in popularity.

    So then, again, the Pilgrim's did not sail to the New World until 1620, after the KJV had been put into printing. It was available to them, but they preferred the Geneva Bible. (Kinda like some people now prefer the NIV.)

    But you are certainly right that at least in terms of the NT the Geneva Bible, the Bishops' Bible and the KJV all were essentially Tyndale's work. And they all essentially were based on the Greek Textus Receptus developed by Erasmus in 1516. Stephanus revised Erasmus' final version, and Beza did the same later. Actually, the KJV followed the Beza version.

    But I appreciate what you have shared about the KJV, and agree for the most part. The fact that it was not the first Bible of the Americans doesn't really matter at all, as you say. It is not a compromise to use the KJV. Perhaps some have said so because some KJ-only adherrants seem to think it has some special place in God's workings.

    But I do object to referring to Westcott and Hort's Greek text as corrupted. And the preservation that God does is with the Greek and Hebrew texts, not to say that He does not cause the imperfect translation efforts of humans to prosper.

    FA
     
  9. Faith alone

    Faith alone
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2005
    Messages:
    727
    Likes Received:
    0
    Decided to read the initial post which brought this all about. Here's the core:
    Is he serious?! The Pilgrims rejected the KJV for similar reasons that many reject the TNIV today - for political reasons.

    The original topic, IMO, isn't really worthy of discussion. Amazing - now I find myself defending the KJV! Well - better than a KJ-only thread.

    FA
     
  10. tinytim

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

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2003
    Messages:
    11,250
    Likes Received:
    0
    Mrs. Woogie, welcome to Baptist board!
    I would just like to point out something that might help you..

    When you post, post break up one long paragragh with spaces between lines every once in a while, it makes it easier to read, and you will get more responses.

    Again, welcome to BB.

    And I don't think it is a compromise either.
     
  11. Mrs.Woogie

    Mrs.Woogie
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2006
    Messages:
    15
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thanks for the tip tiny tim.

    W
     
  12. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,805
    Likes Received:
    78
    PS Mrs W

    Since these are not your words as you mentioned, we need a source to comply with copyright laws. Feel free to add the source in a separate post.

    Roger
    C4K
    Moderator
     
  13. Plain Old Bill

    Plain Old Bill
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2003
    Messages:
    3,657
    Likes Received:
    0
    No comprimise.The KJV is a wonderful translation of Gods' Word.
     
  14. Mrs.Woogie

    Mrs.Woogie
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2006
    Messages:
    15
    Likes Received:
    0
    It was from my pastor.
    There is no copywrite laws.


     
  15. Linda64

    Linda64
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2004
    Messages:
    2,051
    Likes Received:
    0
    Amen, Mrs. Woogie!! I can say that for myself before I started using the KJV exclusively. I debated those "KJVO" people for many months until the Holy Spirit convicted me.
     
  16. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0

    You are completely wrong on your history. COMPLETELY WRONG.

    The crown made it illegal for anyone to own or possess any translation other than a KJV. The Puritans, who rejected the KJV in favor of the Geneva, saw this as the final straw in a long list of persecutions by the Church of England against the Puritan faith.

    The Puritans left England and sailed to the New World with their Geneva, CHOOSING TO REJECT the KJV outright. They landed at Plymouth in 1620 (not 1611, ad you falsely claimed).
     
  17. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    There is nothing wrong with using the KJV, or any faithful translation, exclusively. And, despite the claims to the contrary, I can't find anyone who says that using the KJV is in any way a compromise.
    The Holy Spirit would never convict someone of something that is not scripturally supportable. KJVOism is not scripturally supportable, and must therefore be rejected as liberal doctrine (since it adds to scripture). Note that I'm not talking about and individual's decision to use the KJV exclusively, I'm talking about making the claim that the KJV is solely God's Word to the exclusion of others, or that the KJV is bestowed with greater authority than other translations. That's false doctrine plain and simple. If one truly loves and respects the KJV, then one will reject KJVOism outright.
     
  18. Faith alone

    Faith alone
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2005
    Messages:
    727
    Likes Received:
    0

    You are completely wrong on your history. COMPLETELY WRONG.

    The crown made it illegal for anyone to own or possess any translation other than a KJV. The Puritans, who rejected the KJV in favor of the Geneva, saw this as the final straw in a long list of persecutions by the Church of England against the Puritan faith.

    The Puritans left England and sailed to the New World with their Geneva, CHOOSING TO REJECT the KJV outright. They landed at Plymouth in 1620 (not 1611, ad you falsely claimed).
    </font>[/QUOTE]Mrs. Woogie quoted some source, which had an error there. (I mentioned it earlier.) But let's be easy on her.

    Thx,

    FA
     
  19. Faith alone

    Faith alone
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2005
    Messages:
    727
    Likes Received:
    0
    Johnv,

    Also, Jamestown was not principally a religiously motivated settlement. They insisted on the Church of England there as well or some time. Jamestown was not about the Puritans - that was Plymouth - in 1620.

    FA
     
  20. standingfirminChrist

    standingfirminChrist
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2005
    Messages:
    9,454
    Likes Received:
    0
    for a history on the translation of the KJV or AV Click here
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Loading...