Why I believe that using the KJV is not a compromise

Oops! Petrel's Law confirmed in the opening post. . . I find debates are much more productive when I don't assign motivation to my opponent, and instead concentrate on addressing the facts. You were doing great until this point!

And no one is trying to get anyone to put away the KJV, some of us just object to the idea that the KJV is the only appropriate version to use.

 

While we are on the subject of Billy Grahm, what about the Billy Grahm signature edition of the Message? How about Billy Grahm's endorsement of the Passion movie being Biblically accurate?

 

I'm sure they won't, or a lot of other posts would be edited.

That's all right with me, I prefer light-handed moderating.

 

I don't think anyone here actually thinks using the KJV is a compromise.

Your choice of translation does not make you a compromiser - full stop.

And I agree, no one wants anyone to put away theit KJV Bibles.

 

Mrs. Woogie,

I have not followed those other threads, and I think that any Bible which you actually read is a good one... if you use it. But I would like to briefly comment on the history:

The settlers at Jamestown in 1607 were members of the Anglican faith, the official Church of England, and were not Pilgrims. They went there for economic reasons, not religious.

However it was due to severe religious persecution that the Pilgrims left England and settled in Holland, where there was more religious freedom. In England only the Church of England was endorsed, and those who tried to follow their own ideas were imprisoned and even executed. Spies snuck into their meetings and later gave reports which indicted the leaders and active participants.

But after a few years the Pilgrims felt that their children were being corrupted by the liberal Dutch lifestyle and were losing their English heritage. There were also attempts to reach them even in Holland. News of the success of the English Colony in Jamestown, Virginia led them to leave Holland and settle in the New World.

The Pilgrims were dissenters from the Church of England and established the Puritan and Separatist Churches. (They are actually somewhat different views - the Separatists wanted to separate from the Church of England, while the Pilgrims wanted to bring about change - to purify the Anglican Church.)

The 1611 KJV was available to the Puritans and Separatists. But they rejected it because it was to be revision of the Bishop's Bible which was initiated by King Henry VIII, who had established the Church of England and insisted that all worship in that Church alone, which was not far removed from a Catholic style church. The Pope would not consent to King Henvy VIII divorcing his wife and marrying his mistress. He did it anyway and removed England from RCC control, establishing the Church of England.

But the Geneva Bible had become the main Bible for over 75 years and was essentially a revision of Tyndale's work, as was the Bishop's Bible and the KJV. (Yes, the KJV is a revision, not a new translation.)

The Geneva Bible was the popular Bible of the people of England. The Bishops' Bible never really gained such popularity. King James was approached about funding a revision of the Bishop's Bible, to hopefully replace the Geneva Bible. Now the King James Bible was very much influenced by the Geneva Bible as well as the Bishop's Bible. The translators made a comment in their preface about not striving to make a bad Bible good, but to make a good Bible better. Since King James so opposed and persecuted those who would not make the Anglican Church their church, naturally the Pilgrims and Separatists rebelled against the King James Bible when it was published in 1611.

They were quite vocal in opposition to it. And the Geneva Bible was the Bible of choice of the early Pilgrims when they came to Plymouth Rock in 1620 and remained so for many years. And I must insist that the KJV was available to them. But eventually, as more and more settlers brought the KJV with them to America, the KJV overtook the Geneva Bible in popularity.

So then, again, the Pilgrim's did not sail to the New World until 1620, after the KJV had been put into printing. It was available to them, but they preferred the Geneva Bible. (Kinda like some people now prefer the NIV.)

But you are certainly right that at least in terms of the NT the Geneva Bible, the Bishops' Bible and the KJV all were essentially Tyndale's work. And they all essentially were based on the Greek Textus Receptus developed by Erasmus in 1516. Stephanus revised Erasmus' final version, and Beza did the same later. Actually, the KJV followed the Beza version.

But I appreciate what you have shared about the KJV, and agree for the most part. The fact that it was not the first Bible of the Americans doesn't really matter at all, as you say. It is not a compromise to use the KJV. Perhaps some have said so because some KJ-only adherrants seem to think it has some special place in God's workings.

But I do object to referring to Westcott and Hort's Greek text as corrupted. And the preservation that God does is with the Greek and Hebrew texts, not to say that He does not cause the imperfect translation efforts of humans to prosper.

FA

 

Decided to read the initial post which brought this all about. Here's the core:

Is he serious?! The Pilgrims rejected the KJV for similar reasons that many reject the TNIV today - for political reasons.

The original topic, IMO, isn't really worthy of discussion. Amazing - now I find myself defending the KJV! Well - better than a KJ-only thread.

FA

 

Mrs. Woogie, welcome to Baptist board!
I would just like to point out something that might help you..

When you post, post break up one long paragragh with spaces between lines every once in a while, it makes it easier to read, and you will get more responses.

Again, welcome to BB.

And I don't think it is a compromise either.

 

PS Mrs W

Since these are not your words as you mentioned, we need a source to comply with copyright laws. Feel free to add the source in a separate post.

Roger
C4K
Moderator

 

No comprimise.The KJV is a wonderful translation of Gods' Word.

 

Amen, Mrs. Woogie!! I can say that for myself before I started using the KJV exclusively. I debated those "KJVO" people for many months until the Holy Spirit convicted me.

 

You are completely wrong on your history. COMPLETELY WRONG.

The crown made it illegal for anyone to own or possess any translation other than a KJV. The Puritans, who rejected the KJV in favor of the Geneva, saw this as the final straw in a long list of persecutions by the Church of England against the Puritan faith.

The Puritans left England and sailed to the New World with their Geneva, CHOOSING TO REJECT the KJV outright. They landed at Plymouth in 1620 (not 1611, ad you falsely claimed).

 

There is nothing wrong with using the KJV, or any faithful translation, exclusively. And, despite the claims to the contrary, I can't find anyone who says that using the KJV is in any way a compromise.

The Holy Spirit would never convict someone of something that is not scripturally supportable. KJVOism is not scripturally supportable, and must therefore be rejected as liberal doctrine (since it adds to scripture). Note that I'm not talking about and individual's decision to use the KJV exclusively, I'm talking about making the claim that the KJV is solely God's Word to the exclusion of others, or that the KJV is bestowed with greater authority than other translations. That's false doctrine plain and simple. If one truly loves and respects the KJV, then one will reject KJVOism outright.

 

You are completely wrong on your history. COMPLETELY WRONG.

The crown made it illegal for anyone to own or possess any translation other than a KJV. The Puritans, who rejected the KJV in favor of the Geneva, saw this as the final straw in a long list of persecutions by the Church of England against the Puritan faith.

The Puritans left England and sailed to the New World with their Geneva, CHOOSING TO REJECT the KJV outright. They landed at Plymouth in 1620 (not 1611, ad you falsely claimed). </font>[/QUOTE]Mrs. Woogie quoted some source, which had an error there. (I mentioned it earlier.) But let's be easy on her.

Thx,

FA

 

Johnv,

Also, Jamestown was not principally a religiously motivated settlement. They insisted on the Church of England there as well or some time. Jamestown was not about the Puritans - that was Plymouth - in 1620.

FA

 

for a history on the translation of the KJV or AV Click here