Frankly I am not sure how anyone can hold such a view. I mean if there was NIV Only or ESV Only groups I would be against them as well. Has any of the KJVO actually read the 1611 preface?
The original translators encouraged the updating of the Bible!!! The ESV follows the same translation line as the KJV yet its rejected in KJVO churches and looked down upon.
From the Mind of God to the Mind of Man, James Williams, pp. 153.
Some examples in the KJV of ancient language not in the vulgar tongue
James 2:3 (KJV) 3And ye have respect to him that weareth the gay clothing, and say unto him, Sit thou here in a good place; and say to the poor, Stand thou there, or sit here under my footstool:
Numbers 23:22 (KJV) 22God brought them out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn.
Numbers 24:8 (KJV) 8God brought him forth out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn: he shall eat up the nations his enemies, and shall break their bones, and pierce them through with his arrows.
Job 39:9 (KJV) 9Will the unicorn be willing to serve thee, or abide by thy crib?
Isaiah 13:21 (KJV) 21But wild beasts of the desert shall lie there; and their houses shall be full of doleful creatures; and owls shall dwell there, and satyrs shall dance there.
Three questions for King James Only
1. Which KJV is inspired, since it was revised ten times, the last being in 1850?
2. Why do KJV only people reject the apocrypha, the original 1611 version contained the apocrypha?
3. WHEN was the KJV "given by inspiration of God" – 1611, or any of the KJV major revisions in 1613, 1629, 1638, 1644, 1664, 1701, 1744, 1762, 1769, and the last one in 1850 (ten in all)?
The King James Version Only Position
Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by evangelist6589, Dec 31, 2014.
Page 1 of 4
-
evangelist6589 Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
Not being KJVO, but having held that view in the past (KJVP now), I can easily answer those questions. We'll start with number 2, since the other two are the exact same question.
The Apocrypha was included NOT AS CANON, but as historical books only. They contain contradictions to the rest of the Bible, and even themselves. It was accepted that these were pseudopigraphical books. They were never placed on the same level as the Bible, and never were considered to be divinely inspired.
Now, as to questions one and three, the KJV has never been (except for perhaps the extreme KJVOists, such as Ruckmanites) claimed to be inspired. Preserved, yes. But not inspired. You'll often hear this phrase: "God's perfect word preserved for the English speaking people", or "God's Word perfectly preserved for the English speaking people." It's not about inspiration, it's about preservation.
The ironic thing, is that you used a quote that had the word "vulgar" in it, with old English usage, to show why we shouldn't use old English.
Another ironic thing is that you are using the "it's harder to understand" argument, when in all actuality, using the Flesch-Kincaid model, the KJV is at a lower grade of readability (6th grade reading level) of reading than almost every single modern translation. In fact, this post of mine is at a higher grade reading level than the KJV. This post is roughly an 8th grade reading level, according to their model.
There are some arguments that are valid, but the ones you presented are not them.
In fact, the "Old English" argument is (imo) actually something the KJVOers have on their side. It's a dead language that does not change in meaning anymore. So the words will always mean the same thing when it's understood that they are old English. Today's English is changing constantly, with words' meanings in constant flux. Did you know that just recently they added "soup sandwhich" and "side boob" to some modern dictionaries? -
-
You mean what is KJVP? It is King James Version Preferred. As in it's what I use and recommend, while recognizing the validity of other translations. -
evangelist6589 Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Have you seen a unicorn? Have you seen a satyr?
Would you rather use the word "gay clothing?"
Now read those verses in the NIV and see the difference.
-
Really? The man says he's KJVP, not KJVO; and you jump to "fine clothing" is better than "gay clothing"? When reading the verse in context easily explains what the point of the verse is, and whether you use "gay" or "fine" doesn't change that point in any way whatsoever?
-
Scarlett O. ModeratorModerator
SW is right. You used a word in its archaic meaning (twice in a quote and once by you) to discredit using words in their archaic meaning. -
-
evangelist6589 Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
In the 1611 edition of the KJV on the same page with the table that gives the order how the Psalms are to be read, there is also this heading: “The order how the rest of holy Scripture (beside the Psalter) is appointed to be read.“ On the next pages of the 1611 that lists the lessons from the “rest of holy Scripture” are included some readings from the Apocrypha. Thus, these pages of the liturgical calendar in the 1611 KJV assigned portions of the Apocrypha to be read in the churches. In addition, the cross references in the 1611 KJV cross reference the Apocrypha with the rest of the Bible as though it may have the same authority. In their cross references, did the KJV translators indicate any differences between when they have a reference to a book in the O. T. or N. T. and a reference to a book in the Apocrypha?
In contrast to the KJV, some of the earlier English Bibles had a clear disclaimer stating that the Apocrypha books were not inspired. KJV defender Thomas Holland acknowledged that the 1611 KJV did not have “an explicit disclaimer, as in the Geneva Bible” (Crowned, p. 94). Arthur Farstad noted: “Unlike its predecessors, which clearly stated that the apocryphal books were not part of the canon of Scripture, the 1611 Version contained no comments about the canonicity of the Apocrypha, thus leaving the question open” (The NKJV, p. 24). Before the Apocrypha in the 1560 Geneva Bible, the translators’ disclaimer began with the following: “These books that follow in order after the prophets unto the New Testament, are called Apocrypha, that is books, which were not received by a common consent to be read and expounded publicly in the Church, neither yet served to prove any point of Christian religion.“ -
-
-
To be clear, I am no longer KJVO, but KJVP. In all honesty, my stance on the issue has never changed. But I used to call myself KJVO because it was the "only" Bible I use. It's the one I recommend. I never held to anything such as one having to use the KJV to get saved, or having to use the KJV to be right with God. But the definition of KJVO shifted towards those things, and so while I didn't change my stance, I changed my moniker.
Some out there disagree with me that the KJV is the best translation. And to them I will say that it's definitely the best translation for me. If someone uses a different version, that's fine with me. Use what will get you closer to God. (And that is what separates me from the KJVO camp.) I've even (gasp) preached out of other versions when my audience used other versions. -
KJV-only author R. B. Ouellette claimed that it is a false statement to say that the KJV “is harder to read and understand” (A More Sure Word, p. 150). As support for his claim, Ouellette asserted that the KJV “has a significantly lower average syllable count” (Ibid.). KJV-only author Gail Riplinger also maintained that “the KJV averages less syllables per word” (Language, p. 159). Riplinger claimed that the KJV’s average was 1.310 syllables per word and that the NKJV’s average was 1.313 syllables per word (p. 160). Is that a significant difference?
Furthermore, there may be some reasons why the KJV may have a lower average syllable count that have no bearing on whether or not it is supposedly easier to read and understand. For example, in most editions of the KJV there are several commonly used words that are divided into two or more words where the exact same word united as one word in another translation may count as a longer, multi-syllable word. Some examples include “to day,” “to morrow,” “for ever,” “for evermore,” “son in law,” “mother in law,” “daughter in law,” “strong holds,“ “way side,” “good will,” “any more,“ “any thing,“ “mean while,” “mean time,“ “sea side,“ “sea shore,“ and “cart wheel.” There are also other such words. A few words may be united in the KJV that are divided into two words in another translation. Overall, because those words divided in the KJV are more commonly used words, they would contribute to giving the KJV a lower average syllable count. Those words do not actually make the KJV easier to read and understand. By the way, some KJV editions would unite some of those words such as “to day” to either “to-day” or “today” so that those KJV editions would have a different average syllable count. The 1611 KJV edition had “shall be” united as one, longer word “shalbe,” and it would likely have a different average syllable count.
More importantly, the KJV has a number of archaic words or words used with archaic meanings that may be shorter or have fewer syllables than their present equivalents. Some examples could include “turtle” for “turtledove,” “vale“ for “valley,” “dearth“ for “famine,” “trump“ for “trumpet,” “tongue“ for “language,” “even“ for “evening,” “let” for “hinder,” “anon” for “immediately,” “oft“ for “often,” “sod” for “boiled,” “mete“ for “measure,” “dure“ for “endure,” “quick“ for “living“ or “alive,” “mean“ for “common,” “still” for “continually,” “attent“ for “attentive,” “by and by” for “immediately,” “ere“ for “before,” “minish” for “diminish,” “fine” for “refine,” “astonied” for “astonished,“ and “rid” for “deliver.” While such words may help reduce the KJV’s average syllable count, they do not actually make it easier to read and understand. These reasons or factors indicate why claims concerning “average syllable count” may be misleading and misused -
-
-
Jordan Kurecki Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
You have to look at context and study to do that even when the words aren't archaic and uncommon.
this point is not valid. -
Jordan Kurecki Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
Study of the Word is important but when I study what the word "study" means today, it's going to be totally different than the meaning of the word that caused the translators to use that word in the KJV. So why cripple someone right at the start and make them misunderstand the Word? That would be a stumbling block for many. -
I believe the KJV translators did not want to put the apocrypha in the Bible but they were told to - but I could be mis-remembering. I'd have to look it up again.
Page 1 of 4