How Original Is The KJV?

First of all, why not grow up a bit and don't be so petulant.

Secondly, why not give examples of how we are attacking God's word. Many of us use the KJV along with other versions, and love it dearly. That, sir, is a false attack, and you owe many an apology.

 

Actually, Rippon did quote "that verse" here (Is that even relevant in itself, considering the Bible was not divided into 'chapters' and 'verses' to begin with, apart from some of the Psalms divided into individual Psalms, and the earliest copies of Isaiah are divided by paragraphs under Hebrew letters, as first, chapter divisions of any parts of the Bible and later, verse divisions don't appear until after 1200 AD, in any manner that we would recognize, today.), although he did not even claim to, as he asked a question about "that injunction." (By contrast, you actually quoted 3 verses, while claiming they were one verse, FTR.)

Notwithstanding that, you stated that the verse is not found in the Bible. And, according to your own words, you are "sick of seeing Christians attack the words of God." I am, as well, and those words Rippon cited are the words of God, as well, for those exact words are, in fact, "a Bible verse, in any version."

Whaddya' know! It is actually even in English. I suggest God is familiar with that verse, after all, even though Lukasaurus apparently is not.

BTW, the claim you imply about 100 versions is ridiculous, to say the least. I have absolutely "zero doubt" that you, me, or anyone else on the BB (or in history, anytime, for that matter, has read through anything remotely approaching 100 different Bible versions, ever. I'm not even sure I have ever made it through one, completely, in any systematic fashion, although I have read easily a half-dozen books, through, at one sitting, and have read complete fairly 'long' books through, in the same fashion, such as Matthew, Revelation, Ezra, and Daniel, and have covered all of Genesis in two 'sittings.'

Ed

 

Bro. Ed,

What you've written is very possibly true.

Short of presenting an extensive history of what's now referred to as the English Puritan movement that developed during the Tudor & Stuart monarchies, I'll just say that many of the established "High Church" Anglican officials had varying degrees of disdain for several within the Puritan ranks.

This dislike of the Puritans was only exacerbated by the elevation to the throne of the Roman Catholic Queen Mary in 1553. Many Puritans fled to various places within continental Europe. Probably the most influential group of them was the one that wound up in the Swiss city of Geneva, which at that time was practically a theocracy under the influence of John Calvin.

The theology of most of these transplanted English refugees was for the most part in basic agreement with that of Calvin, and thus they tended to prosper almost as a separate colony in SW Switzerland, at least until Mary's reign ended in 1558.

About the most notable accomplishment of this band of Englishmen was the translating and publishing of the Geneva Bible.

One of the main reasons why Stuart King James I of England (who'd already been crowned as James VI of Scotland) was so receptive to the so-called "millennial petition" of 1603 which, among other things, called for a new translation of the Bible, was because he was so upset with most of the very negative commentary notations regarding so many of the OT monarchs found in the early editions of the Geneva Bible, that he wanted to do all he could to erase from all Englishmen's memories what happened when a new monarchial dynasty took control.

For almost 120 years prior to James's ascention to the English throne that nation had been under the control of five succeeding Tudor monarchs, and his own claim to the English throne was not without opposition from other rival claimants.

Most of the English Puritans were not seriously opposed to the idea of a monarchy, nor, for the most part were the majority interested at that time in completely separating from the established Church of England.

But since a newer translation of the Bible was a part of this petition, James I was very pleased to "Authorize" such a venture, PROVIDED, there would be no marginal notes that were commentary in nature!

However, among the general populace of Protestant England of AD 1611 (and for several years following), the translation of choice was NOT the KJV, but rather the Geneva Bible. As with a lot of things even today, it usually takes a while for "something new" to really catch on.

I'll conclude by mentioning two fairly recent works that have shed much light on the life and times of the people who translated the KJV:

Alister McGrath's In The Beginning: The Story of the King James Bible and How It Changed a Nation, a Language, and a Culture [Doubleday (c) 2001]; and Adam Nicholson's God's Secretaries: The Making of the King James Bible [Harper Collins (c) 2003].

 

Then the AV men blew it in their marginal note, "Or, O day starre".

 

Sorry, Luke, the KJV was *NOT* the 7th "purification" of anything. God's words were pure the instant he said them. They have NEVER needed "purified", and besides that, how could MAN purify anything of GOD'S?

In addition, the KJV was the 9th or 10th English version with a notable readership. There were more versions made, but many were only local in their distributorship. You KJVOs arrivet at "7" by picking-n-choosing only 6 versions among the several made before the KJV. More pencil magic.

Luke, you really need to examine the material found in those pro-KJVO boox for VERACITY insteada just blindly accepting it as fact. A close exam will reveal far more baloney than beef.

But back to the theme of this thread. The KJV was mostly a revision of existing versions, especially the Tyndale NT, the complete Bishop's Bible, and to some extent the Geneva Bible minus its many footnotes. Its translators worked with both the ancient mss AND some prior translations in fronta them. Now, while there wasn't a great deal of originality there, I see nothing wrong in that.

But the fact remains that neither the AV1611 nor its predecessors have one quark of Scriptural support for the KJVO doctrine.

 

Luke:I am sick of seeing Christians attack the words of God. It's almost like they are denying the deity of Jesus Christ or something. It breaks my heart to see men willingly attack and reject God's words.

Well, here's ya a hit of Alka-Seltzer, & a dab of Norvask for yer heart!

We are NOT attacking God's word. we are attacking the KJVO doctrine, which is DEFINITELY NOT God's word. And I don't think any Baptist here rejects the KJV...we simply are not bound to just the one version, and God Himself isn't so bound, either!

Your KJV sez: " Wherein I suffer trouble, as an evil doer, even unto bonds; but the word of God is not bound.(2 Tim. 2:9)

Luke, can you provide any SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT for KJVO? If not, it still stands as incorrect, a doctrine of religion NOT FROM GOD. So, please, cease & desist from trying to equate an attack against KJVO with an attack against God's word. That hippo just won't fly.

 

"O day starre" is on marginal note, NOT in the text.

 

A Textual History of the King James Bible
David Norton
Cambridge University Press, 2005

 

But the Doctrine of Ignorance (God blesses ignorant /not knowing/ more than knowledge) insists that we must not have translator footnotes in Bibles. Personally, knowing what a translator footnote is, I believe the translator footnotes in my Bibles.

 

Well I'll tell ya what slays me. The KJVO folks sound the rally cry of JKB 1611 while reading and quoting from the 1789 KJ translation.The first big tip off is the spelling.I wonder how many KJVO's actually even own a 1611 King James translation.:laugh:

 

Oh by the way my good friend Lukasarus is going to a school that uses a lot of Ruckman material in case you wonder where he gets some of his ideas.

 

If they really do have an authentic, printed in AD 1611, edition of the KJV, I wonder how much time these folks spend reading the Apocrytha that was included in it--and thus (following their own line of reasoning) of necessity must also be God-breathed, infallible, and completely without any admixture of error?

 

But it COULDA just-as-easily been in the text. That's why the translators noted it.

 

It SHOWS! Prolly a dose of Riplinger as well.

 

Jerome has made us aware that the intelligent author David Norton in his A Textual History of the King James Bible does use the acronym KJB (from the Introduction) --

The text of the KJB is commonly thought to be the fixed and stable work of one collection of translators. This is not the case... ​

I believe that what is being suggested by his application of King James 'Bible' (KJB) is that there is no singular edition that can be properly called the King James Version, therefore a collective term is required to address all the revisions of similar text. In practice this means that no one reads from a KJB, but rather, an individual would read from a particular KJV where the publisher & date (and perhaps other information) is vital to establish exactly which text is being claimed. This is also true of some other Bible versions besides the King James, but perhaps no other Bible text has BOTH actually often been edited from it's original publication AND widely assumed to have never been modified.

 

Amen, Brother Franklinmonroe -- Preach it! :thumbs:

Here is the way I like to say it:

All VALID English KJV Bibles
Collectively and Individually
contain and are
the Inerrant and Perfect
Written Word of God
preserved by Divine Appointment
for the generation in which they are translated.
​

​

 

A blessing of this time is that virtually all the older English Bible versions are available to us now, either electronically or in repro printings. One can easily compare almost any English version with almost any other, old or new.

 

KJB is simply Norton's preferred term for the 1611 and/or subsequent editions, considered together or individually.