1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

How did the Modern KJVO Movement Get Started?

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by Dr. Bob, Mar 5, 2004.

  1. Phillip

    Phillip <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    Don't keep jumping on Cranston; I have actually heard that statement by a little (well-meaning) Bible believing woman in my own church. Bless her heart, she really thought it was true and didn't understand until I finally taught a (what we used to call "training union") class and explained the origins of different translations through the Originals through Septuagint, the Vulgate, through the Modern Versions. We wrapped up the classes with discussions of different MV's and their translation philosophy (word for word, vs thought for thought, and anywhere in-between including discussing the paraphrase versions aka Living Bible). The people left with a great knowledge of where their translations originated and how the word of God is carried forth. Most were older people and they loved the class.

    I have a large collection of old Bibles including an original German Guttenberg and a KJV 1611 printed in 1612, plus numerous pages from Geneva and earlier translations. They loved looking at these. The interesting part; however, was watching the people's shock at the difference between the KJV 1611 and their KJV. The main statement made by most people was: "You can't even read this!" :D
     
  2. mioque

    mioque New Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2003
    Messages:
    3,899
    Likes Received:
    0
    "I have a large collection of old Bibles including an original German Gutenberg" :eek: :eek: :eek:

    You're that wealthy?!
     
  3. rsr

    rsr <b> 7,000 posts club</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    11,850
    Likes Received:
    1,084
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Phillip, if I took you to Pete's, would you show me these treasures?
     
  4. skanwmatos

    skanwmatos New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2003
    Messages:
    1,314
    Likes Received:
    0
    The above information is incorrect. The immigrants to the "New World" did not break the copyright on the KJV. When the US became an independent nation the laws of Great Britain no longer applied on our shores, and, as the "Crown Patent" did not meet the criteria under International Copyright Law, the British copyright on the KJV applies only to Great Britain and those members of the Commonwealth who voluntarily follow the British law.
     
  5. rsr

    rsr <b> 7,000 posts club</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    11,850
    Likes Received:
    1,084
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Well, then, we must all realize this is no biblical justification for any translation — or any set of manuscripts.
     
  6. robycop3

    robycop3 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    14,362
    Likes Received:
    668
    Faith:
    Baptist
    The AV DID contain the king's TAX STAMP for awhile, placed in each copy at the suggestion of KJ's Finance Minister(or whatever they called the title then), Sir Robert Cecil. This tax was paid by whoever bought bought the AV.
     
  7. Phillip

    Phillip <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    I would show you without going to Pete's, but YES, YES, yummy. I see you know fine food! :D
     
  8. Phillip

    Phillip <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    The above information is incorrect. The immigrants to the "New World" did not break the copyright on the KJV. When the US became an independent nation the laws of Great Britain no longer applied on our shores, and, as the "Crown Patent" did not meet the criteria under International Copyright Law, the British copyright on the KJV applies only to Great Britain and those members of the Commonwealth who voluntarily follow the British law. </font>[/QUOTE]You are correct to a certain point, but as a student who is working to obtain his patent agent license, I can say with confidence regardless of the way I phrased my other post, there was no such thing as a "Copyright" law in England at the time. Only an order from the king not to print the Bible for a 100 year period. And yes, Americans did break the English law because if you will check the dates AND history, you will find that the New World was still a territory of England when the first prints came out. Copyright law did not come until later when it was discovered that it was needed, very similar to patent law. ;)
     
  9. Phillip

    Phillip <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well, actually I said the wrong thing because I was writing so fast. I do not believe it was printed BY Guttenberg, but was printed on a Guttenberg press in the early 1700's. I do not know the actual publisher. No I'm not rich. Only in the Lord!!!!!

    Well, I don't think it is worth as much as you think since it was published in the early 1700's and not the 1600's. It is a beautiful book with many woodcut pictures. It is very fragile and big, and the metal claps have long gone.

    Somebody drew a sailing ship in detail on the front two blank pages with a pencil. I can only imagine when it was drawn because the ship is drawn with detail and shows that of a ship dated in the 1700's.

    But, I do have a 1612 KJV and many pages some of the Bishop's Bible, Geneva, KJV (different 1600 and 1700 dates). Too many to count KJV teacher's Bibles dating in the 1800's among some written during the civil war. I have an 1890 or 1880 Baptist Hymnal. I haven't even heard of the hymns in it.

    They are still treasures to me because anything actually read or touched by someone 300 years ago is special to me.
     
  10. skanwmatos

    skanwmatos New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2003
    Messages:
    1,314
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sorry, but that also is wrong. The first King James Version of the bible to be printed in the new world was done by Robert Aitken of Philadelphia in 1782.
     
  11. Phillip

    Phillip <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sorry, but that also is wrong. The first King James Version of the bible to be printed in the new world was done by Robert Aitken of Philadelphia in 1782. </font>[/QUOTE]Funny how we all want to be right.

    The first "official" version! :rolleyes:
     
  12. robycop3

    robycop3 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    14,362
    Likes Received:
    668
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Facts are:

    There were KJVOs here and there ever since 1611.

    There were a few more KJVOs in the 19th century, especially after the RV was published, but it was still a rather minor thing.

    The modern monster began with Ben Wilkinson's book and has been built upon ever since, especially since the advent of the NIV. Virtually every KJVO argument now used is based upon something written by Wilkinson, or by those authors who built upon his work almost to the point of plagiarism, with some fantasies of their own minds added. Much of their work has degenerated from the fantasy mode to the dishonesty mode, led by the works of Riplinger and Ruckman.
     
  13. skanwmatos

    skanwmatos New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2003
    Messages:
    1,314
    Likes Received:
    0
    No, the first KJV printed in the US was printed in the year I stated. What is an "official" version and how does it differ from an "unofficial" version? And, if you have evidence of a KJV printed in the US prior to the date I posted please give us that evidence so it can be checked out. If it is correct you will have proven every historian, and even the US Library of Congress to be wrong.
     
  14. skanwmatos

    skanwmatos New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2003
    Messages:
    1,314
    Likes Received:
    0
    Where did you get those "facts?" What evidence can you supply supporting your "facts" that there were KJVOs prior to the publication of the REV in 1865?
    Even if you repeat that baseless assertion a thousand times it will still not be true. KJVO predated Wilkinson by at least 65 years. That has been conclusively proven.
     
  15. Baptist in Richmond

    Baptist in Richmond Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2003
    Messages:
    5,122
    Likes Received:
    19
    [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG]

    If you have a REAL 1612 Authorised Version then it is worth some serious money.....
     
  16. Baptist in Richmond

    Baptist in Richmond Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2003
    Messages:
    5,122
    Likes Received:
    19
    Sounds a lot like piracy, doesn't it?
    We are going to be our own country, so your copyright laws don't apply to us.

    Isn't that the same thing about which Microsoft is complaining? Isn't J.K. Rowling (did I spell that correctly?) is complaining about the Harry Potter books being illegally printed in China?
     
  17. Baptist in Richmond

    Baptist in Richmond Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2003
    Messages:
    5,122
    Likes Received:
    19
    This is totally nonsensical.
    So, to usurp your own statement and use it on your claim:
    Now if you can provide rock solid evidence (you know what that is I hope) that such a statment was made in full seriousness by a Bible beleiver [sic], then that is a different story. So far though, your camp has yet to provide such.

    Who was it that cried "give us the next version off the presses" on this board? Who even implied this statement? I notice what you wrote at the end of the statement: since that is true, why did you even bother?

    By the way, I am still waiting to see your Scriptural support for KJV-Onlyism.

    [ March 08, 2004, 09:15 PM: Message edited by: Baptist in Richmond ]
     
  18. skanwmatos

    skanwmatos New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2003
    Messages:
    1,314
    Likes Received:
    0
    It is the International Copyright Laws that preclude the Crown Patent being enforced internationally. The Crown Patent does not meet the criteria established by the International Commission on Copyrights.
    China is a member State of the United Nations and thus is signatory to the International Copyright agreements. China is violating its own laws by allowing the infringement.
     
  19. Craigbythesea

    Craigbythesea Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    5,534
    Likes Received:
    21
    skanwmatos,

    What is your source for this information? Compare the following:

    The KJV by its four-fold reference to the Holy Spirit as "it" set a precedent that had and even yet has a long and pernicious life. Error dies hard, especially once entrenched. When later scholars set to revise the KJV, they often left these four passages uncorrected. Henry Alford's mid-19th century revised English version left the KJV uncorrected in all four verses. The American Bible Union (Baptist) revised New Testament of 1865 (2nd edition, 1867) also let this old error stand uncorrected in all four verses. Even the later revision of this translation done by Henry Weston, Alvah Hovey and John Broadus (published ca. 1889) leaves "it" in John 1:32, though Romans 8:16, 26 read "himself" and I Peter 1:11 has "he."

    Source: "THE SPIRIT ITSELF," OR,
    THE GREATEST DEFECT IN THE KING JAMES VERSION
    By Doug Kutilek
     
  20. skanwmatos

    skanwmatos New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2003
    Messages:
    1,314
    Likes Received:
    0
    I own both editions and the information is contained in the "PREFATORY NOTE" starting on page 3.
    I am not sure what your point is? What does Kutilek's remarks have to do with what I posted?

    And, just an aside, every first year Greek student knows the pronoun referring to the Holy Spirit is neuter, and the KJV translators translated it exactly as it appears in the Greek. Only somebody with an idiotic agenda would claim that is a "mistake."
     
Loading...