Why I believe that using the KJV is not a compromise

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]Actually John, they landed at Provincetown Massachusetts first, and then went on to Plymouth.

 

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]AH, but the history channel had a special showing that there was ONE KJV aboard the Mayflower, owned by the Captain of the ship and kept in his quarters; however, you are right, the Bibles carried by the passengers were all Geneva.

Later, American's began "bootlegging" the KJV by printing it in America against the crowns authority. This caused a few interesting situations to occur, but it is an interesting story. Most people don't realize that two printers were authorized to print the KJV and both of them stamped it with "The Authorized Version" so that everybody who purchased it knew its printing was sanctioned by the King.

 

I'm having a LOT of trouble believing that the English Standard Version, let alone the NASB were influenced as much as the link would like to make us believe making them "somewhat revisions of the KJV."

The following quoted statement is certainly IN QUESTION: "Modern Bibles such as the New American Standard Bible and the English Standard Version are largely revisions of its text; it has deeply influenced Bibles such as the New International Version that do not claim to be revisions of its text."

Both were TRANSLATED from the original languages. The underlying manuscripts may have been consulted and compared, but "revisions"? I don't think so.

 

standingfirminChrist, I really like you and like your posts, but I have a real problem with Mr. Chick's accuracy on a LOT of issues.

 

I feel that where the printing of the KJV is concerned, Mr Chick's article posted above is lining up with the history of the KJV.

I do not agree with all of what Mr Chick holds to, but I believe he is dead on with this issue.

 

Don't quote Jack Chick too much. It will only serve to ruin one's credibility. That would be like asking Dan Quayle a spelling question, or Benny Hinn a question on healing.

He's not. He claims the KJV was the Bible of the common man. It was not. The first common bible was the Gutenburg. The common bible in England was the Geneva. The KJV was not the common bible until the crown made it illegal to own or possess any bible other than a KJV.

Chick also implies that the RCC kept the Bible from the common man. That's grossly untrue. Prior to the invention of the printing press, books were incredibly expensive. Only wealthy folks had bibles. Likewise, only wealthy folks could afford to learn to read and write. But the printing press changed that, and with the release of the Gutenburg, the Bible became available to the masses. Same with much other literature. With that also came an increase in an ability to read and write.

 

I'm having a LOT of trouble believing that the English Standard Version, let alone the NASB were influenced as much as the link would like to make us believe making them "somewhat revisions of the KJV."

The following quoted statement is certainly IN QUESTION: "Modern Bibles such as the New American Standard Bible and the English Standard Version are largely revisions of its text; it has deeply influenced Bibles such as the New International Version that do not claim to be revisions of its text."

Both were TRANSLATED from the original languages. The underlying manuscripts may have been consulted and compared, but "revisions"? I don't think so. </font>[/QUOTE]I think revision may be too strong a word in describing the influence of the KJV on the ESV and NASB. However the RV is a revision of the KJV. The ASV a revision of the RV. The RSV and NASB are revisions of the ASV. And the ESV is a revision of the RSV. So there is some validity to that statement.

 

It is correct that the Roman Catholic Church of England did try to control distribution of the Bible. In fact, they have done it up until just a few years ago, a Catholic I work with says he had never done Bible study until he went to his wife's Lutherin Church. He said the church encouraged them NOT to have or read a Bible. REALLY

However, in reality, England did not control all of Europe. The Geneva Bible was well spread, especially in areas such as Holland where us Baptists came from.

 

&lt;&lt; This blind Baptist came from Africa. lol

 

Jack Chick's statement that the KJV is for the common man is a true statement. God did not mean for His Word to be for clerics alone, but for all mankind.

 

Gold Dragon! That would be a mouthfull to say! Much easier to read!
-------------------------------------
I found this site a while back and have found it to be accurate in as much (or as little) as I know . . .

English Bible History

I have always favored the NASB. I found this quote on the site:

The bold faced is mine. This is what I was taught. I was going to say that his is what I was taught decades ago, but I realized that it couldn't have been too terribly long after the NASB came out. My son is still being taught this in his seminary studies today.

I did not know this about the NIV (which happens to be the next paragraph), but it makes sense (again the bold is mine):

This does explain its popularity and why, when I was writing for BSSB/Lifeway, it so quickly took over as the version to quote.

 

You were a missionary?

 

I just bought an ESV and the only issue I've had with it so far is the print is too small (or maybe I'm just getting to old to read it). I cannot hold that against the ESV though as I bought a pocket Bible to keep in my purse or mmmm even my pocket

 

Phillip,

Not a missionary, an army brat. lol

Born in africa, reborn in prison, dwell in mississippi, live in Christ

Am blind due to RP, but have much spiritual sight!

 

Bitsy,

You look familiar...ever live in Greensboro?

 

Another factor to be considered was that the geneva Bible was relatively inexpensive, while the first AVs were quite expensive, especially with the king's TAX STAMP added to the price. The common man just couldn't afford it.

I don't believe it's a compromise to use the KJV, but I DO believe there are only TWO valid reasons to use the KJV only-Because it's the only version available for some people, or from PERSONAL PREFERENCE. There are no other valid reasons, IMO.

 

Great, I work for the Army as a civilian. Engineering. I like it.

 

Well, even JUDAS got one right every now-n-then.

 

These are my sentiments!

I love reading and learning about the history of the various versions. This Bible is so precious to me. I am grateful to the translators of old who literally lost their lives to make sure that the Bible is in a language I can read. I am equally grateful to the modern day translators seeking a high degree of accuracy in the translation.