Why has the KJV been so popular?

My view of God comes from the Scriptures, not from the subjective opinions of men from their biased understanding of history.

I nowhere suggest that God fumbled the ball whether in 1537, in 1560, in 1611, in 1629, in 1638, in 1743, in 1762, in 1769, in 1829, in 1873, in 1982, or in any other year. Your questions would improperly try to misrepresent and distort what I state.

 

I refer to your post #56 which is very strawman like. You see the defects and come against them, but you do not see the big picture of the "refined" KJV that came about because of the problems.

 

I have read it over 65 years. It is true that every page was soaked in blood trying to get the Bible in English and it is true that the words of the Bible out to be written in gold.

 

Your response is not clear. What specific statement do you claim is not true?

 

If you have a half an hour, watch the video that I linked, which outlines the history of getting the Scripture translated into English. If you dislike the KJV, then you dislike a lot of the work of Tyndale. For an English Bible to be established, the monarch had to grant permission. Tyndale as he was dying prayed for God to open the eyes of the King of England. God did that.

 

You fail to prove your allegation that I do not see the big picture to be true.

I would advocate the consistent, just application of what the Scriptures state and teach over the subjective opinions, speculations, and assumptions of men.

 

I do not dislike the KJV as you incorrectly seem to assume and suggest. I have carefully studied the history of the English Bible including the history of making of the KJV and have also examined the pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV was a revision along with many editions of the KJV. I have read the book about the English Bible written by the person who made the video.

Some of Tyndale's accurate renderings were changed to renderings more favorable to Church of England doctrinal views in the KJV. While much of the KJV comes from Tyndale, the 1611 KJV would have a few renderings to which William Tyndale would object according to his writings.

 

Much of what the KJV borrowed from Tyndale may come directly from the 1560 Geneva Bible or the 1568 Bishops' Bible and thus indirectly from Tyndale.

Do some give the makers of the KJV credit for what they actually borrowed from others?

 

I said "if", didn't I?

 

I think we view "Providence" differently. I see the providential outcome, that is, I have several refined KJVs on my shelf that God provided for me. But you seem to suggest, if God provided them, it would not have involved all the retakes and misgivings that happened along the way. But scripture knows of many failures that were part of the process through which He provided the final outcome.

 

I have over 100 (perhaps over 200) editions of the KJV on my book shelves. I have reprint editions of the pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV was a revision on my shelf. I have the "refined" edition of the KJV made by Noah Webster in 1833. I have the "refined" edition of the KJV made by Bible-believing Baptists in 1842.

What is your definition of a "refined" KJV?

According to what specific higher standard and greater authority, were the actual changes, revisions, or corrections made to those KJV editions?

Which specific edition of the KJV do you claim is the final outcome and how do you know that it is? Are there any actual differences between the KJV text in those "several refined KJV's" on your shelf?

Do you merely assume that a certain edition is "the final outcome" or do you compare it to some higher standard and greater authority that was used in making the changes to it?

Do you have one of the present KJV editions printed from a KJV text typed up on a computer among the editions on your shelf?

Do you have the refined edition of the KJV edited by David Norton and printed by Cambridge in 2005 on your shelf?

Would you consider the 1982 NKJV to be a "refined" KJV?

 

I think the pure cambridge version is refined. But I am puzzled by your attitude towards this version of God's word. I rejoice that we have it and believe your calling God on the carpet for the defects you strain to detect is astonishing. It seems as though it is an obsession. I'm thankful for all of the translations I can get hold of.

 

I am glad that you liked the video. I have never been out of North America but it seemed as if the pictures were of the UK as it is in memory and imagination as

"This royal throne of kings, this sceptred isle,
This earth of majesty, this seat of Mars,
This other Eden, demi-paradise,
This fortress built by Nature for herself
Against infection and the hand of war,
This happy breed of men, this little world,
This precious stone set in the silver sea,
Which serves it in the office of a wall
Or as a moat defensive to a house,
Against the envy of less happier lands,--
This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England" (Shakespeare)

But the video does remind one of the great sacrifice of blood and treasure to leave the boundless legacy of the English Reformation to the world--"None but Christ! None but Christ!.". (John Lambert, Smithfield, 1538)

 

In 2011, Cambridge University Press was printing at least six varying editions of the KJV.

Those six editions are the Concord edition, the Pitt Minion edition, the Standard Text Edition or Emerald Edition, the 2011 Clarion Edition, and the 2011 edition of the 2005 New Cambridge Paragraph Bible edited by David Norton. In addition, at least a couple publishers in American was printing the 1873 Cambridge edition by Scrivener. There are some actual differences between those seven Cambridge editions.

Do you accept the claims of the Pentecostal elders [Craig Savige, Samantha Savige, Matthew Verschuur] of the Victory Faith Centre in Australia concerning what they claim is the "pure Cambridge edition"?

On what basis do you think that edition is refined?

You avoided the important point of what was the higher standard or greater authority used in making the refined changes or revisions to that edition of the KJV. I am seeking to determine if you accept any certain specific edition of the preserved Scriptures in the original languages as the greater authority or if you assume a certain edition of the KJV is the final authority in and of itself.

 

Are you merely making assumptions about what you think is my attitude since you do not actually know my heart nor my attitudes concerning the KJV?

I love and accept the KJV as what it actually is.

Disagreeing with unproven opinions or claims concerning the KJV, which have not been demonstrated to be true, would not suggest any negative attitude towards the KJV.

 

I am not KJV only, but it is my favorite translation. I have a 1611 copy but the Pure Cambridge eliminates many archaic words and updates letters of the alphabet into easier reading. I know nothing of the Pentecostals and their claims. But back to my original intent, I believe God in his providence made the KJV the most popular bible for 400 years when he could have just as easily withheld it, or provided another.

 

Again, by God's providence it is the most popular bible in the last 400 years. Now, I'll admit, I notice your obsession with researching and detailing the minute faults in the history of the KJV. And this stands out to me as being odd.

 

You are confusing creation (inspiration in bibliology) and preservation. God created the world, but then He preserved it. It was not His will to preserve it perfectly.

in bibliology, inspiration (which occurred in the original languages of the Bible) was an act of creation, but then God preserved His Word through humans. He never promised to preserve His word in the same way he inspired it--perfectly and inerrantly--except in Heaven (Ps. 119:89).

 

Interesting that you used the word "providence" here. I completely agree that God preserves His word through providence. That is different from saying that He preserves His word by miracles.

Do you believe in miraculous preservation? If we have a perfect translation in the KJV as some say, then it had to be miraculous. (You appear to believe in an inerrant KJV by not answering the points by Logos concerning errors in various editions. Please say so if you do not hold to an inerrant KJV.) If so, then when was the miracle, who saw it, and how did it happen?

P.S. I just read Post #70, in which you appear to acknowledge the errors in the KJV editions listed by Logos. Do you believe in the "purified seven times" view as per Ps. 12:6) of some that the KJV was purified by various revisions until it is now perfect?