A Timeline of the KJVO Movement

[Yeshua1]

I'm not sure. You'd have to source that for me.

You were right, and I was wrong!
"The Trinitarian Bible Society has been associated with the King James Only movement, due to its exclusive sales of the KJV Bible in English and number of articles defending the KJV and against other modern versions such as the NASB, NIV, ESV, and NKJV. [4] However, the Society stated "The Trinitarian Bible Society does not believe the Authorised Version to be a perfect translation, only that it is the best available translation in the English language."[5]

Unlike others in the King James Only movement, the Society claims, "The supernatural power involved in the process of inspiration, and in the result of inspiration, was exerted only in the original production of the sixty-six Canonical books of the Bible (2 Peter 1:20-21; 2 Peter 3:15-16)."

"Translations from the original languages are likewise to be considered the written Word of God in so far as these translations are accurate as to the form and content of the Original."

"Translations made since New Testament times must use words chosen by uninspired men to translate God’s words. For this reason no translation of the Word of God can have an absolute or definitive status. The final appeal must always be to the original languages, in the Traditional Hebrew and Greek texts."[6]"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Ziggy]

"The Trinitarian Bible Society does not believe the Authorised Version to be a perfect translation, only that it is the best available translation in the English language."


But if so, then where does the TBS identify *any* place in the KJV where they consider a reading to be imperfect, inadequate, less than "definitive ", or defective in any way?

I didn't think so....

 

[Yeshua1]

"The Trinitarian Bible Society does not believe the Authorised Version to be a perfect translation, only that it is the best available translation in the English language."


But if so, then where does the TBS identify *any* place in the KJV where they consider a reading to be imperfect, inadequate, less than "definitive ", or defective in any way?

I didn't think so....

They technically would not be KJVO, but did not notice them having any other versions on their site for sale!

 

[Ziggy]

The TBS constitution requires them to distribute in English only the KJV. That is a given.

The question is, in light of their statement as quoted, if they do not claim the KJV to be a "perfect" translation (as per the KJVOs), then where or when have they *ever* noted any place where the KJV rendering is *not* "perfect"?

 

[Salty]

Not that I am wanting to pick a fight with anyone, because I don't like that. .

Allow me!

1611—The translation of the KJV is finished. The translators worked from the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, and did not claim perfection.
1769—The main revision of the KJV takes place. This is the version used by almost all KJVO advocates, even those who advertise “1611 KJV” on their websites and church signs.

Actually a serious question, John - was there an uproar of the "1611" group when the 1769 came out?

 

[Jerome]

1611—The translation of the KJV is finished. The translators worked from the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, and did not claim perfection.

1688—Francis Turretin (1623-1687), a reformed theologian, writes his Instsitutio. The second volume is The Doctrine of Scripture to teach the verbal inspiration of the Bible in the original languages, and oppose Vulgate Onlyism. His doctrine comes down to us in the 21st century as verbal-plenary inspiration, as taught by Louis Gaussen, B. B. Warfield, John R. Rice, and other evangelical theologians. This is the standard doctrine of the inspiration of Scriptures until the KJV-Only movement happens along.

1769—The main revision of the KJV takes place. This is the version used by almost all KJVO advocates, even those who advertise “1611 KJV” on their websites and church signs.

The "standard" and correct view is that inspiration applied only to the Originals, correct?

The 1679 Baptist Confession:

"XXXVII. Article.
Of the Sacred Scripture.
The Authority of the holy Scripture, dependeth not upon the Authority of any Man, but only upon the Authority of God....no Decrees of Popes, or Councils, or Writings of any Person whatsoever, are of equal Authority with the sacred Scriptures. And by the holy Scriptures we understand, the Canonical Books of the Old and New Testament, as they are now translated into our English Mother-Tongue....All which are given by the Inspiration of God"

 

[robycop3]

SDA Dr. Ben Wilkinson wrote his 1930 book, Our Authorized Bible Vindicated in response to a squabble within his cult over certain doctrines & over a couple of Bible versions, especially the British RV of 1881, which was never particularly well-liked anywhere. When the squabble was resolved, W lost interest in that book. That's why he remained silent about it when J. J. Ray heavily plagiarized it in 1955 in his God Wrote Only One Bible without acknowledging W at all. That book, promoted thru modern media, got the current edition of the KJVO myth off the ground, but it didn't really fly until the early 1970s when good modern versions began coming out.

 

[John of Japan]

Allow me!

Actually a serious question, John - was there an uproar of the "1611" group when the 1769 came out?

None of my histories of the English Bible say anything about an uproar.

The 1769 was actually the culmination of a process that ended in what we have today. A man named Dr. Thomas Paris worked mainly on the italics in a corrected version brought out in 1762. He missed some, though, and in particular left a mistake in the italics of Eccles. 7:1. ("Good" should be in italics. Check your own KJV; mine retains the error.) Then in 1769 Dr. Benjamin Blayney did the 1769 revision. He also left some italics errors in. (This is from Dewey M. Beegle, God's Word into English, pp. 113-114.)

Concerning the 1769 corrections: "In 1769 Dr. Blayney introduced into the Oxford Bible 76 changes, including many on weights, measures and coins. These were practically private changes made to elucidate the text as it had been preserved from its final revision. As late as 1873 the Cambridge Paragraph Bible gave a list of variations from the text of the King Janmes Version as it first appeared in 1611, that covered sixteen closely printed pages" (Ira Maurice Price, The Ancestry of Our English Bible, 281-282).

 

[Salty]

Thank you John!

 

[John of Japan]

"The Trinitarian Bible Society does not believe the Authorised Version to be a perfect translation, only that it is the best available translation in the English language."

But if so, then where does the TBS identify *any* place in the KJV where they consider a reading to be imperfect, inadequate, less than "definitive ", or defective in any way?

I didn't think so....

I guess it depends on how one defines "KJVO." I do know their American rep, and he's all about the Greek and Hebrew, but especially the Hebrew.

 

[John of Japan]

The 1679 Baptist Confession:

"XXXVII. Article.
Of the Sacred Scripture.
The Authority of the holy Scripture, dependeth not upon the Authority of any Man, but only upon the Authority of God....no Decrees of Popes, or Councils, or Writings of any Person whatsoever, are of equal Authority with the sacred Scriptures. And by the holy Scriptures we understand, the Canonical Books of the Old and New Testament, as they are now translated into our English Mother-Tongue....All which are given by the Inspiration of God"

This is a suitable addition to the timeline.

 

[John of Japan]

SDA Dr. Ben Wilkinson wrote his 1930 book, Our Authorized Bible Vindicated in response to a squabble within his cult over certain doctrines & over a couple of Bible versions, especially the British RV of 1881, which was never particularly well-liked anywhere. When the squabble was resolved, W lost interest in that book. That's why he remained silent about it when J. J. Ray heavily plagiarized it in 1955 in his God Wrote Only One Bible without acknowledging W at all. That book, promoted thru modern media, got the current edition of the KJVO myth off the ground, but it didn't really fly until the early 1970s when good modern versions began coming out.

Thanks. This definitely belongs in the timeline after 1930, but we're not there yet. Stay tuned.

 

[John of Japan]

1882—Hort and Westcott edit their famous two volume edition of the Greek New Testament. Volume 1 is the Greek NT, and Volume 2 is their textual commentary. They choose the Alexandrian family of manuscripts as their “Neutral Text,” meaning the text that is closest to the original manuscripts, in their opinion.

1883—John Burgon writes The Revision Revised. He is opposed to Westcott and Hort, and defends the traditional text of the Greek NT. Burgon becomes a go to scholar for KJVO advocates, even though he himself was not even TR only, since he did not believe the TR was perfect. (He is often called “Dean Burgon,” but “dean” refers to his position as Dean of Chichester in the Church of England, and is not his name.)

 

[Ziggy]

I guess it depends on how one defines "KJVO." I do know their American rep, and he's all about the Greek and Hebrew, but especially the Hebrew

As to my actual question, it would be of interest to hear what the TBS representative might say about the TBS's own claim that the KJV is not a perfect translation. If so, at what point in the text would the rep admit that the KJV rendering is something less than "perfect"? I simply have never seen such acknowledged in any TBS publication, although they have never had a problem in telling everyone what is *not* correct or "less than perfect" in every other English translation, including those based on the TR like the NKJV.

 

[Yeshua1]

The 1679 Baptist Confession:

"XXXVII. Article.
Of the Sacred Scripture.
The Authority of the holy Scripture, dependeth not upon the Authority of any Man, but only upon the Authority of God....no Decrees of Popes, or Councils, or Writings of any Person whatsoever, are of equal Authority with the sacred Scriptures. And by the holy Scriptures we understand, the Canonical Books of the Old and New Testament, as they are now translated into our English Mother-Tongue....All which are given by the Inspiration of God"

Yes, as that states that inspiration was to the original books....

 

[Yeshua1]

SDA Dr. Ben Wilkinson wrote his 1930 book, Our Authorized Bible Vindicated in response to a squabble within his cult over certain doctrines & over a couple of Bible versions, especially the British RV of 1881, which was never particularly well-liked anywhere. When the squabble was resolved, W lost interest in that book. That's why he remained silent about it when J. J. Ray heavily plagiarized it in 1955 in his God Wrote Only One Bible without acknowledging W at all. That book, promoted thru modern media, got the current edition of the KJVO myth off the ground, but it didn't really fly until the early 1970s when good modern versions began coming out.

Interesting that the Kjvo movement was kick started by a Cultist!

 

[Yeshua1]

As to my actual question, it would be of interest to hear what the TBS representative might say about the TBS's own claim that the KJV is not a perfect translation. If so, at what point in the text would the rep admit that the KJV rendering is something less than "perfect"? I simply have never seen such acknowledged in any TBS publication, although they have never had a problem in telling everyone what is *not* correct or "less than perfect" in every other English translation, including those based on the TR like the NKJV.

They do not state that they are Kjvo, but in practice they act as if they are!

 

[Yeshua1]

None of my histories of the English Bible say anything about an uproar.

The 1769 was actually the culmination of a process that ended in what we have today. A man named Dr. Thomas Paris worked mainly on the italics in a corrected version brought out in 1762. He missed some, though, and in particular left a mistake in the italics of Eccles. 7:1. ("Good" should be in italics. Check your own KJV; mine retains the error.) Then in 1769 Dr. Benjamin Blayney did the 1769 revision. He also left some italics errors in. (This is from Dewey M. Beegle, God's Word into English, pp. 113-114.)

Concerning the 1769 corrections: "In 1769 Dr. Blayney introduced into the Oxford Bible 76 changes, including many on weights, measures and coins. These were practically private changes made to elucidate the text as it had been preserved from its final revision. As late as 1873 the Cambridge Paragraph Bible gave a list of variations from the text of the King Janmes Version as it first appeared in 1611, that covered sixteen closely printed pages" (Ira Maurice Price, The Ancestry of Our English Bible, 281-282).

Is the Cambridge 1873 Kjv edition still regarded as being the "best" edition, as in least amount of mistakes and typos in it?

 

[robycop3]

Thanks. This definitely belongs in the timeline after 1930, but we're not there yet. Stay tuned.

K.

 

[George Antonios]

NOTE: Byzantine/Majority authors and developments will only be mentioned as they relate to the KJV Only movement. Non-English translation efforts will also only be mentioned as they relate to the KJV, or if they represent a previous “Only” movement.

200 BC (more or less, who knows)—The Septuagint (LXX), a Greek version of the Old Testament, is translated ostensibly by 70 Jewish scholars.

1st Century AD—A Septuagint Only movement develops. Later on, famed Christian scholar Augustine (354-430) would be one of the advocates of the idea of a perfect Septuagint, and would complain to Jerome that he should not have translated the OT from the Hebrew. Thus, the first "Onlyist" movement. develops.

Christians bravely fighting against a perfect Bible of any kind anywhere...