Wikipedia-KJVO Article!

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by DeclareHim, Feb 23, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. DeclareHim

    DeclareHim
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2004
    Messages:
    1,062
    Likes Received:
    0
    Just wanted to let everyone know someone wrote an article on Wikipedia about the KJVO movement. Here's the link KJVO Movement.
     
  2. Diggin in da Word

    Diggin in da Word
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2006
    Messages:
    1,132
    Likes Received:
    0
    Although many claim the KJV full of holes and that the NASB is more accurate, I notice that the KJV has only made changes to spelling and printing errors and left original hebrew and greek alone.

    NASB has made over 8000 changes in 1995 from it's 1977 edition. None of them spelling or printing.
     
  3. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    NASB has made over 8000 changes in 1995 from it's 1977 edition. None of them spelling or printing.

    Howdya know those changes are wrong? Or, is it just a guess?
     
  4. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    The Wikipedia article entirely skips the actual proven origin of KJVO, which was Dr. Wilkinson's book, and the men who copied it, errors and all. The squabble ofer the RV was largely confined to theologians in England. Fact remains the RV was never popular among the laymen, and there was little stink raised against it in other English-speaking nations.
     
  5. TCassidy

    TCassidy
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    12,195
    Likes Received:
    1,315
    Yes, they skipped it because it is patently untrue!
     
  6. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    The issue of KJVOism is not with the KJV. The issue wth KJVOism is not one of which translation is better than which translation. The issue of KJVOism is that KJVOists hold the KJV to the level of being perfect, and authoritative over any other translation before of since. KJVOists believe that the KJV and the KJV alone is the sole authoritative, inspired, perfectly preserved, and infallible Word of God for all Christians everywhere. This is a completely false doctrine (since it is not found in scripture, and all who love the KJV must take a stand against such doctrinal error.
     
  7. Salamander

    Salamander
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2005
    Messages:
    3,965
    Likes Received:
    0
     
  8. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    No, it isn't!

    From Day One of the publication of the AV, there were those who declared it to be the only valid English BV there was, but there was no attempt to push such a belief upon the general public.

    And I reckon you've read all the post-Wilkinson KJVO books that I have...but there's simply no record of any literature that had a wide circulation among the general public before 1930 that promotes what passed for KJVO "back in the day", and even less that says that no other English version is valid, and that no better valid version could be made.

    I'm sure your reading of the works of Wilkinson, Ray, Ruckman, Fuller, and the later KJVO authors has revealed a pattern to you of the post-Wilkinson works copying his points (and his errors) that still holds true today. There are very few modern KJVO works that don't include at least some of the material written by Wilkinson.

    As you told me elsewhere about the Psalm 12:7 thingie:

    I don't deny this in any way nor any point...but what we're discussing here is the CURRENT DOCTRINE of KJVO which was indeed started, although inadvertently, by Dr. Wilkinson. And it started in the USA, not England. The earlier British squabbles involving the RV & Dean Burgon were "worked into" the mix later, after subsequent authors had written their books, based upon Wilkinson's Our Authorized Bible Vindicated.

    Before Wilkinson, there was a smattering of several other KJVO points in other works, as well as a small assortment of material denying the primacy of the KJV as the be-all, end-all English version. It appears that Wilkinson was the first to compile many of the various KJVO points as well as adding some of his own invention, in one book.

    We have noticed that Dean Burgon no longer seems to be the poster-boy for many current KJVO groups. I believe that's because many of them have actually READ HIS BOOKS and seen he certainly was NOT KJVO. While he thought the RV was a piece of junk, he also believed the Textus Receptus could stand a thorough overhaul. The current KJVOs don't like that.

    In summary: While there have been KJV-Only people since 1611, there was no organized group until fairly modern times, and today's movement that's been around no earlier than 1930 bears little resemblance to its predecessors. I freely acknowledge that there have been advocates for use of the AV/KJV alone since 1611, but their advocacy was a far cry from today's movement. THEIR movements are dead. When I say Wilkinson began the movement, I am referring to the CURRENT one. Perhaps I shoulda made myself more clear when I said that. Sorry if anyone misunderstood.

    Cranston
     
  9. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

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

    Really? I don't know a single KJVO who does not believe that the KJV is the sole Word of God (at least in English) for all people.

    You just made my point. Scripture does not ever claim that there will be one sole translation that is to be the sole correct translation for all people of that, or any, language.

    Oh, so it's the fault of liberals that language changes over time. That's a new one, not to mention false. The beauty of the English language is that it evolves with the passage of time. That's why it's still around. And, that's why the AV1611 came out: because the ENglish langauge had changed from the days of the Geneva and Bishop's Bibles.

    ALl fine and dandy, except for three problems:
    1 - The KJV was written in high English, not commoner's English of the day. That was one of several reasons that contributed to its initial unpopularity. It main reason it became widespread in use is because the crown made it illegal to own or possess any other translation besides the AV.

    2 - The NT was written in commoner's koine Greek, not more formal versions of the language. That fact supports the idea of translating scripture into the commoner's tongue, in any language.

    3 - Today's English is no longer identical to 17th century King's English. It is therefore reasonable to produce a translation in today's tongue.
     
  10. TCassidy

    TCassidy
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    12,195
    Likes Received:
    1,315
    Over and over and over again I have given you quotes from established authors and publications dating from the turn of the 20th century dealing with the issue of KJVOism indicating the author had been aware of it as early as 1875 but you, much like the KJVOs, simply ignore anything that disproves your pet thesis!
     
  11. gb93433

    gb93433
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    15,496
    Likes Received:
    6
    Anyone knows that the KJV including the apocrypha was a modern translation in 1611 and met opposition then.
     
  12. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    Over and over and over again I have given you quotes from established authors and publications dating from the turn of the 20th century dealing with the issue of KJVOism indicating the author had been aware of it as early as 1875 but you, much like the KJVOs, simply ignore anything that disproves your pet thesis! </font>[/QUOTE]And over & over, I have stated that our discussions are about the CURRENT DOCTRINE, which, after Wilkinson's book was published, took a sharp left turn. The authors you mentioned generally said, in so many words, that the KJV was the BEST version then existing, and NOT that it was the ONLY valid version, as the current doctrine says.

    And this current doctrine was derived from WILKINSON'S book. Most likely, he copied the ideas of others, as we've seen his research was quite shallow in many areas, and, as I said earlier, he appears to be the first to compile these little tidbits from here & there...but there's no truthful denial that the CURRENT doctrine started with his book. Wilkinson brought many of the previous ideas and errors together, peobably for the first time, in one volume.

    Wilkinson appears to have done as little research as those whose incorrect ideas he copied. A clear example is the Psalm 12:7 thingie. Morgan was wrong about it in his book, and Wilkinson was just as wrong in HIS.
     
  13. Salamander

    Salamander
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2005
    Messages:
    3,965
    Likes Received:
    0
     
  14. Salamander

    Salamander
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2005
    Messages:
    3,965
    Likes Received:
    0
    KJVO? Since 1611
     
  15. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    JohnV: Oh, so it's the fault of liberals that language changes over time. That's a new one, not to mention false. The beauty of the English language is that it evolves with the passage of time. That's why it's still around. And, that's why the AV1611 came out: because the ENglish langauge had changed from the days of the Geneva and Bishop's Bibles.

    A slight correction, if I may, John...

    There are two reasons the AV was made...First, there were several versions in use in various Anglican congregations. The officials of the denom wanted ONE VERSION to be established and appointed to be read in all their churches. They had begun assembling their starting lineup of translators while QE 1 was living. After KJ took the throne, there was a brief wait to see what his religious views were. They found he hated the Geneva Bible for its many footnotes, some of which clashed with his beliefs, such as their denial of the "divine right of kings". Therefore KJ told the AC officials to proceed with their new translation.

    So there were two reasons to make the AV...the AC's desire, and KJ's desire. It wasn't over language, as the oldest GB edition of the NT was made in 1557, and the Bishop's Bible was finished in 1568. The language hadn't changed THAT much in that time span.
     
  16. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    Here we go again. The Salamander bait and switch in lieu of discussing the topic. Let's make this simple, so even you can understand it. KJVO's believe that the KJV is the sole Word of God. Some believe it is the sole Word of God for all people regardless of language, and some believe it is the sole Word of God for English speaking people.

    Neither scenario is scripturally supportable. Hence, neither scenario is a scripturally sound doctrine.
     
  17. Alcott

    Alcott
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2002
    Messages:
    7,456
    Likes Received:
    93
    The Bible ain't about "harmony and eloquence." It's about vital information. If you were writing a software manual, would you write in KJV style English?

    Watered down and everchanging today?? [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG]
    At the time of Jimmy and his Anglicans writing this version (between christening infants and locking separatists [incl. Baptists] into the stocks and prison cells), Shakespeare and others were inventing new words and beginning arguments over 'standards' for grammar and spelling, and continuing their determination that the London/Oxford/Cambridge dialect would win superiority among the 7 basic dialects of English. Old Shakey, broader minded than most, though, included some of all of these dialects, along with his own inventions, and ended his writings with a vocabulary of about 22,000 words, compared to the 8,000 of the KJV.

    If you want basic, unchanging English, learn to speak the Mercian dialect of Alfred the Great from the 8th century, when the "potential" of the spoken word of the Angles and Saxons was first realized (at least in writing).
     
  18. TCassidy

    TCassidy
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    12,195
    Likes Received:
    1,315
    Not only did it meet opposition, the King had to outlaw the Geneva bible to get people to use the KJV! [​IMG]
     
  19. TCassidy

    TCassidy
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    12,195
    Likes Received:
    1,315
    Wrong again!
    That, in a nut shell, is exactly what KJVOs believe today. To try to say that the current KJVO position originated with Wilkinson is simply untrue and to continue to repeat it when you know it to be untrue is dishonest. We cannot defend a book of Truth with untruth!
     
  20. David J

    David J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2004
    Messages:
    796
    Likes Received:
    0
    If KJVOism is true then there should be Scripture(s) to support this belief. If not then it is a man made lie pushed forth as the gospel truth with NO SCRIPTURE(S) to support it.

    The bottom line is KJVOism is a false man made doctrine. The history of the KJV proves KJVOism false. No "ifs" "ands" and "buts" about it. The KJV translators would reject KJVOism.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Loading...