"KJVO" Beginnings

They were also under orders to depart from the Bishops Bible as little as possible. Could this have something to do with it? Yes, no, maybe so?

 

Erase.....

 

Preach on, Brother Ed, let's also not forget that the KJV translators used the use the Latin Vulgate for the last six verses of Revelation. The Vulgate was also used by the translators in the decision making process to determine which manuscript pieces to use. This is actually a simplistic form of textual criticism that is used today by referring to the oldest manuscripts.

We cannot just ignore transcripts that date to within 300 or 400 years of the manuscripts used by the early churches.

Which of the TRs do we wish to choose? Do we pick and choose the way the KJV translators did? One of the TRs that is revered so highly today is more of a "reverse engineered" document using the KJV and other early English translations to make corrections to the original languages. This is certainly not going to provide the most accuracy in translation.

Even the NKJV which WAS translated from the TR varies from the KJV in places where certain manuscripts do not agree with one another. This is the reason for the footnotes that were so helpful in the REAL KJV1611 edition -- the footnotes that people would like to ignore because they were not reprinted in later versions.

America was introduced to the Bible with the Geneva translations brought by the Mayflower. There was a single KJV in the captians quarters that was locked up the entire time (according to a special on Discovery). Otherwise, the original American Bible was not the KJV and the King tried to enforce his demands not to print it in America with little success.

Am I leading off track here. No, my point is, every single edition since the printing press was placed into operation has met with the MV accusations and after a generation the translation would be accepted.

This is the reason that I truly believe the NKJV will be accepted as well as the KJV1769 as soon as this generation passes and it WILL be considered the next true version of the KJV and people will fight for it as much as they do the 18th century version.

IMHO

 

Did the Discovery channel explain what Christopher Jones was doing with John Aldens Bible?

 

So do you believe the KJVs will eventually lapse into disuse like the Geneva Bible lapsed into disuse? Do you think that someday there will be a NKJVO movement or an onlyist movement based on any other English Bible version?

 

The Codex Sinaiticus (Aleph) was not available to Erasmus in 1516. Tischendorf 'discovered' Aleph on his third visit to the Monastery of Saint Catherine, at the foot of Mount Sinai in Egypt, in 1859. Please correct me if I am wrong.

 

No, because they were supposed to depart from the Bishop's Bible where it would be neccesary to be more faithful to the original languages. Codex Vaticanus (B, or 03) is an ancient Greek manuscript which could have been used as a source. I don't beieve that Codex Sinaiticus (Aleph) was actually available at that time.

 

Franklinmonroe: //The Codex Sinaiticus (Aleph) was not available to Erasmus in 1516. //

True, but moot

This was said by
Brother Pastor_Bob: //A point worth remembering is that the KJV translators
had the equivalent of Aleph and B readings
available to them through the work of Erasmus,
but chose not to accept them.//

This was NOT said by
Brother Pastor_Bob: //A point worth remembering is that the KJV translators
had the -- Aleph and B readings
available to them through the work of Erasmus,
but chose not to accept them.//

 

The A.V. occupies a unique position in history. It was published less than a century after the publication of the first printed Greek New Testament. Greek manuscripts of collections of the scriptures certainly existed, but there was not many (if any) complete critical texts, that is, a carefully compared printed composite of extant and readily available Greek manuscripts.

It took most of a century after the invention of moveable type (not the printing press) for a desire to arise to create Greek fonts to produce printed matter. The price of a printed book fell in Europe to more accessable levels, thus creating wider readership, and a demand followed for additional reading material and non-Latin Bibles. The impetus for the English Bible was therefore the availability of the printed Greek critical text which could be now be studied at schools of higher education, and compared widely to the printed Latin text. I think this would be considered an explosion of literacy (from 2-3% to 10-20%?).

The A.V. had the finacial backing of a national treasury during a period of relative peace and properity in England. Extremely fine scholars were gathered and organized in a unprecedented manner to work the project. The best resources of the day were at their disposal. The Crown ensured its investment would become the standard text in the Empire.

In the 1700-1800s, there were times of difficulty in Europe (wars, disease, exploration, etc.), and printers and publishers are in business to make a living wage. The costs associated with printing books somewhat flattened out, and there was little free time for commoners to read; these factors did not foster a particularly grand market to sell new competitive Bibles. They did not have efficient methods to market their wares.

Which brings us to 1900s technolgies that allow faster distribution of information. Western prosperity allowed more leisure time for reading. Industrialization brings about more effective printing production. Modern mail service (railroads), radio, followed by television, and finally the internet. Digital communication has dramatically affected publishing and printing since the 1960s.

It seems obvious to me that no Bible version will ever enjoy again such a long period of non-competiveness, the spread of colonization, the protective legislation, and financing of a national government.

 

Please educate me... how do we know that Erasmus readily had equivalent texts available, and rejected them?

 

Brother, to ensure that I offer accurate information, I'll have to wait to answer when I get to the office and have access to my library.

 

Good enough brother -- be sure to have an extra
Godly sermon, there may be guests tomorrow.

 

I'm praying for an extra-godly preacher. Then, the sermon will take care of itself. raying:

 

I'll pray that direction also raying:

With double blessing as both of the sides ...

 

I believe KJVO developed over many generations. For hundreds of years, the English speaking world knew only one standard, and that was the KJV. 'That's how it's been, and that's how it's going to be' seems to be the mentality behind it.

I was KJVO once. I wasn't KJVO because I compared the many translations and deemed the KJV to be Gods one intended translation for mankind, and I certainly didn't find it anywhere in scripture. I was KJVO because that's what I was raised in. It was a way of thinking that I was taught from others who likely had this belief passed down to them as well. What else is there but the KJV?

I'm sure if President Bush established the NIV to be the standard Bible and retired all previous translations and that standard was in effect for 400 years, people would be grasping to NIVO, and there would be people writing books on how the NIV is Gods intended translation for mankind and all others are perversions.

When something is done a certain way for so long, it just becomes accepted. But when questions are asked, a reason must be made for this belief. And that's what happened with KJVO. As new translations started popping up, people asked, "why KJV? why not ____?". KJVO is simply answers to those questions- answers made by man in an honest attempt to explain what people have been taught for generations.

 

You may be right about the beginnings of the KJVO movement being honest attempts to answer the question "Why not (insert version name here)?" However that honest attempt to answer the question has turned ugly over the course of time. Writers such as Gail Riplinger, Peter Ruckman and some others have turned the issue ugly, taking the offensive and condemning any version that is not one of the KJVs as "perversions" and other such names.

 

Of the mss available to Erasmus (the number is still in dispute - I personally believe 8 or 9), he had one, minuscule 1 from the 11th century, that was very much like Aleph & B. It was so different from the other witnesses he had available that he did not use it very much.

 

Thanks, Pastor Bob... That makes sense to me. If I had 6 or 7 examples that were similar to each other, and 1 that seemed quite different than the rest, I would probably avoid the one (considering it an aberration) in favor of the majority. Praise God, He's arisen!

 

I agree with Kubel on this. The late great Dr. J. Vernon McGee(1904-1988) had the same view. He taught & preached from the KJV, but he said it was because that was the version he'd used his entire life, and that he knew it was weak in places, & that there was nothing wrong with newer accurate translations.

Actually, I believe more than one KJVO author, even among the "founding fathers", was trying to milk a cash cow by using "yellow journalism".

 

The information I offered in the above post came from General Biblical Introduction - The Word-Bearer Press, 1937 - by H.S. Miller. Upon further research, I found the following which substantiates Miller's claim.

Source: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn/Manuscripts1-500.html