When Did KJVO come Into Church?

Then it is also important, in the interest of fair discussion, to state it this way instead of as a fact.

 

Would this be the same reason people hate solid modern translations?

 

What? Amy, I am an administrator of this board and a moderator of this forum, have you missed my consistent defence of the KJV and its text in this thread?

Criticism does not equal hatred. Honest criticism of any translation is tolerated, attacks on any translation are not.

It is not hatred, or even an attack, to call the KJV an Anglican translation. It was translated by translators in the Church of England (Anglican). Does that make it a bad translation? Of course not, it is simply a fact.

I think the Byzantine Text body is superior, that by its very nature, means that I consider the Alexandrian texts inferior. Does that mean I hate modern translation based on those texts? Of course not - it is an observation, a view, or an opinion. Others are free to believe otherwise, that does not mean they hate the KJV that I love so much.

You will note that I question those who state that the KJV is based on inferior texts as a fact. They don't know that - but it is their opinion and they can do so without hating my choice.

 

Well said

Well said, Roger. I have joined a KJVO church due to the fact that my children (young adults and grandkids) all go there and I simply keep my mouth shut. If I were to bring an NIV into the building I would probably be kicked out.

I tend to go along with Roger on the Byzantine textform, but again, as Roger says, it is an opinion and my opinion is based on what I have read, not any scholarship.

I will say that I use the ESV, NASB, NIV and KJV and compare all of them as I read and the reason I tend to lean toward the newer versions is that I have read all of these to my grandchildren who are very bright, but very young and they just can't understand what the KJV is trying to say. If I read it to them from an NIV, they get it. For that reason alone I must say that modern versions have their place and I disagree with a pastor who says make the kids read the KJV they will pick it up. No sir, they will pick up what someone tells them those difficult words mean and often they are wrong. I had much rather use a modern English translation for young children and people who did not grow up reading the KJV since they were babies.

Does this mean the KJV is and was not a great translation? Absoluately not.

 

Roger, if you will go back and read my posts, I did not mention any names. I simply quoted actual statements from this thread to address JF. It was stated that the KJV is an "inferior" translation among other things. Yet certain people continue to claim that it was never stated that the KJV is inferior.
You are a good moderator. I never criticized your moderation.

I never used the word "attack". And no, the KJV was a joint effort of Anglicans and Puritans and the Anglicans did not want a new translation. So to be accurate, the KJV is not a purely Anglican version.

I never accused anyone of "hating" the KJV. I get tired of baseless accusations. Although I don't understand certain people's obsessive criticism of it.

Yes I have noticed and appreciate it but like I said I never brought your name into this discussion. I used actual quotes from this thread to make my point (without names), which is in black and white and yet some still deny it was ever said. And if I make statements that the NIV is inferior to the KJV, you'd better believe that there are some on this board who would jump on me for that. I've seen it many times. So there is a double standard here, but I never said you were part of it.

 

Apologies - mentioning a double standard seemed to me to imply that it was a board double standard.

I disagree that there is a double standard, both sides state that the other manuscripts are inferior, and both sides are called up by fellow posters when they do.

And yes, the Puritans were indeed Anglicans. They were called Puritans because they sought to purify the Anglican Church from the inside, instead of separating from it. The KJV is a translation commissioned by the king and carried out by the state church. It is an Anglican Version - but that is a strawman because that has nothing to do with the quality of translation.

 

Many early Anglicans were loyal to the word of God, and provided the greatest theological books in print. Yes, the early KJV included Anglican church polity and practice, but if any one group provided a copy of scripture, their peculiar doctrines also show up especially in verses that are questionable at best, even in the Greek and Hebrew, as we know it.

There is no question, historically, that any other translation has done as much to advance evangelical Christian theology and build local churches as has the KJV.

Modernity has developed many translations that develop this Christian thought, and is appreciated by many, including myself. Still, I remain strong with my KJV. I still preach and teach from my 1945 version of the KJV, and will do so to my dying day.

This is not to confuse my appreciation for modernity in versions, and does not make me a KJV onlyist, by a stretch of the imagination.

I am not even sure about the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts we claim to be copies of the originals.
There are rules to understanding scripture, and I believe that hermeneutics to be the most valuable lessons we can learn. Much more than what version we use.

Cheers,

Jim

 

I can't speak for others, but I do not give much thought to the MVs. I think you would be hard pressed to find where I have ever ridiculed someone for using them, not my style.

I simply present the argument that if God preserved the scriptures, then only one version can be the word of God, as all versions are different.

I will on occasion point out differences, such as John 7:8. The MVs omit the word "yet" which makes Jesus appear to lie when he went to the feast.

I do find it rather hypocritical for people to constantly criticize the KJB, and then turn around and say they love it. Sounds like a rather abusive relationship to me.

 

Must everything you love be perfect? I love my wife but I know she isn't perfect and she loves me in spite of my imperfections- is that hypocritical and abusive?

 

Some modern versions may omit "yet" (or a word/phrase meaning the same thing), but by no means all. For instance (and please don't take this as meaning that I necessarily like or support all these versions):

Bible in Basic English:

Go you up to the feast: I am not going up now to the feast because my time has not fully come.
​

Message:

"You go ahead, go up to the Feast. Don’t wait for me. I’m not ready. It’s not the right time for me."
​

New King James:

"You go up to this feast. I am not yet going up to this feast, for My time has not yet fully come."
​

Weymouth:

"As for you, go up to the Festival. I do not now go up to this Festival, because my time is not yet fully come."
​

Young's Literal Translation:

"Ye—go ye up to this feast; I do not yet go up to this feast, because my time hath not yet been fulfilled;"
​

Rather than "The MVs omit the word "yet" ", would it not be more accurate to say "Some MVs do not translate the Greek word which in the KJV is translated 'yet'"?

I am not intending any criticism of the KJV in what I have written above.

 

David, Winman has used two of the oldest and worn out arguments from KJVO handbook. Both are petty and false.
1. God promised to preserve His word, therefore there can only be one legitimate version. Somehow this argument ignores the fact that not everyone in the world speaks English. It ignores the fact that the 1611 version has been modified since its inception. Winman would be hard pressed to read the original version.
2. The Jesus lied argument.....blah, blah, blah...

 

This is also an old argument - once we get past the the Gothic typeset if you can read the KJV1769 you can read the 1611. The vast majority of the modifications are to standardise spellings.

 

It's a rebuttal to the argument that God has preserved His word exclusively in the KJV. If this were true then why has the KJV changed over the years? Should it not be as it was originally produced? If not then which version of the KJV is the exclusive one? Is it the 1611? Is it the 1769 version? Is it....?

 

That is fine and I agree, but to imply that the 1611 is virtually unreadable is simply not true. It only takes a few minutes for the person of average intelligence to adapt to the Gothic font and realise the spelling differences and it is totally readable and usable. If you have a edition in Roman typeface it is no problem at all to read.

 

I simply believe God brought about the KJB just as England (and later America) became the first global superpower, taking the gospel to all the world. I do not believe this mere coincidence.

And I would believe any accurate translation of the RT into another language would be the word of God in that language.

My view is based on the belief that God is truth, and that he wants all people to know the truth, therefore he would preserve his word.

Does that mean that occasional errors do not creep in? No, men are fallible and make mistakes, there are many famous editions with errors. But these were quickly spotted and corrected.

The major changes in the KJB has been standardization of spelling. The KJB is almost identical to the original of 1611.

 

Young's is based on the RT, Weymouth used his own Greek text. Those based on the CT omit "yet".

 

Would you also concede that the CT translated into another language would be the Word of God?

Your meaning of "almost identical" and mine are worlds apart. I would say the KJVs of today compared with the KJVs of 1611 have a vague similarity at most.

 

Could you point out the glaring differences that make them 'vaguely similar?'

There is no perfect translation or perfect edition. There are a couple of places, like I John 5v12 where the 1611 left out a couple of words, but the vast majority of the differences are indeed standardising spelling that took place in English between 1611 and 1769.

Could you produce even one passage which illustrates thus vague similarity idea?

 

Six words were added to the 1611 at one verse (Eccl. 8:17), three words were added at several verses (Lev. 26:40, Num. 7:31, Num. 7:55, 2 Kings 11:10, Ezek. 3:11, 2 Cor. 11:32, 2 Tim. 4:13), two words were added at several verses (Exod. 15:25, Exod. 35:11, Lev. 19:34, Lev. 26:23, Deut. 26:1, 1 Sam. 18:27, Ezek. 46:23, John 7:16, 1 John 5:12, Rev. 1:4), and one word was added at over 60 verses. There are at least 15 verses where later editions omitted one word found in the 1611 edition.

 

Okay, let's say there are 100 different words. Does that fit the description of vaguely similar?