• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

A Timeline of the KJVO Movement

Status
Not open for further replies.
John of Japan

John of Japan

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Ziggy said:
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.
Click to expand...
My interactions with him have been strictly on foreign translations, of which he has done several from the traditional texts. I tend to avoid KJVO discussions with him, though he is very gracious and would answer well, I'm sure. In fact, I avoid such discussions off the BB, except for an occasional Q&A in my classroom.
 
Y

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
John of Japan said:
My interactions with him have been strictly on foreign translations, of which he has done several from the traditional texts. I tend to avoid KJVO discussions with him, though he is very gracious and would answer well, I'm sure. In fact, I avoid such discussions off the BB, except for an occasional Q&A in my classroom.
Click to expand...
I respect their work into getting the bible out into the world, but just wish that they would make it clear that they really are Kjvo.
 
robycop3

robycop3

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Yeshua1 said:
The KJVO seems to be a strictly 20th century movement!
Click to expand...

There were older KJVO movements that didn't have too many homeboys & didn't last long. Several were against newer versions ever being made, especially when the British govt. was trying to stifle the older Geneva & Bishop's versions & prevent any other English versions but the AV from being printed or sold within the British Empire. Later ones came after several shipwreck translations were made, such as the RV of 1881. (The ASV wasn't too bad, but it wasn't very popular.)

That's why I refer to "the current edition" of the KJVO myth when I think it's necessary to clarify a view. Past ones don't matter now, except as historical items.
 
Y

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
robycop3 said:
There were older KJVO movements that didn't have too many homeboys & didn't last long. Several were against newer versions ever being made, especially when the British govt. was trying to stifle the older Geneva & Bishop's versions & prevent any other English versions but the AV from being printed or sold within the British Empire. Later ones came after several shipwreck translations were made, such as the RV of 1881. (The ASV wasn't too bad, but it wasn't very popular.)

That's why I refer to "the current edition" of the KJVO myth when I think it's necessary to clarify a view. Past ones don't matter now, except as historical items.
Click to expand...
Think that the 1881 RV caused some heartburn among the Kjv faithful, but strange thing is that some who were Kjv actually liked the asv 1901!
 
L

Logos1560

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Salty said:
John - was there an uproar of the "1611" group when the 1769 came out?
Click to expand...

While there was not an uproar in 1769, there would be somewhat of one in the 1820's-1830's. Thomas Curtis accused KJV publishers such as Oxford and Cambridge of corrupting the text of the 1611 KJV. Thomas Curtis collected lists of differences or variations in KJV editions and took them to Oxford Press and Cambridge Press. His book was entitled The Existing Monopoly: an inadequate Protection of the Authorized Version. (London, 1833). One of KJV editors, Thomas Turton, replied to Curtis's accusations. His book was entitled The Text of the English Bible. 1833. It was because of this "uproar" that Oxford University Press reprinted the 1611 edition of the KJV in 1833. This 1611 reprinting was intended to show that printers of the KJV in the 1800's could not go back to printing the 1611 because of its errors.

There was also an uproar in America in the 1850's about differences in KJV editions. The American Bible Society made a revision of the KJV that they published in 1852. For six years it was their standard KJV text until a few people caused an uproar about it so they dropped it. Thomas Curtis had moved to America so he may have been also involved in this uproar about differences in KJV editions.
 
Y

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Logos1560 said:
While there was not an uproar in 1769, there would be somewhat of one in the 1820's-1830's. Thomas Curtis accused KJV publishers such as Oxford and Cambridge of corrupting the text of the 1611 KJV. Thomas Curtis collected lists of differences or variations in KJV editions and took them to Oxford Press and Cambridge Press. His book was entitled The Existing Monopoly: an inadequate Protection of the Authorized Version. (London, 1833). One of KJV editors, Thomas Turton, replied to Curtis's accusations. His book was entitled The Text of the English Bible. 1833. It was because of this "uproar" that Oxford University Press reprinted the 1611 edition of the KJV in 1833. This 1611 reprinting was intended to show that printers of the KJV in the 1800's could not go back to printing the 1611 because of its errors.

There was also an uproar in America in the 1850's about differences in KJV editions. The American Bible Society made a revision of the KJV that they published in 1852. For six years it was their standard KJV text until a few people caused an uproar about it so they dropped it. Thomas Curtis had moved to America so he may have been also involved in this uproar about differences in KJV editions.
Click to expand...
was this a big uproar when the RV came out in 1881 also then?
 
L

Logos1560

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
John of Japan said:
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.
Click to expand...

Many have been unaware of the important 1743 Cambridge KJV revision or edition. For many years in histories of our English Bible, there has been overemphasis on the 1762 Cambridge edition and neglect of this earlier important 1743 Cambridge edition.

David Norton wrote: “The long-missing element of careful proof-reading and correction of the text was resumed in this 1743 Bible” (KJB: a Short History, p. 161). Gordon Campbell wrote: “The folio Bible that Parris produced for Cambridge University Press in 1743 was an important edition because of the principles on which it was edited” (Bible, p. 136). Campbell does not even refer to the later 1762 Cambridge edition. David Crystal referred to present KJV editions being derived from “F. S. Parris’s Cambridge edition of 1743” along with the 1769 Oxford (Begat, p. 9). David Norton observed: “Parris shows himself to have been a very perceptive editor, highly attentive to the relationship between the translation and the original, and sensitive to small details of language and punctuation” (KJB: a Short History, p. 162). John Anthony Nordstrom observed: “Parris’s great accomplishments were printed in the next Cambridge Bible of 1743” (Stained with Blood, p. 224). Changes introduced in the 1743 Cambridge can be found in London, Oxford, and Cambridge editions before the 1762 Cambridge edition was printed. A 1747 London KJV edition was likely based mainly on the 1743 Cambridge. Among whatever earlier editions he may have used or compared, F. S. Parris may have consulted the 1660 London edition or have been aware of its editing concerning the use of nominative case “ye.” It was the 1743 Cambridge edition that introduced [perhaps reintroduced from the 1660 London] the nominative case “ye” for “you” in over 200 places. The 1743 Cambridge also introduced many of the uses of an apostrophe to indicate possession.
 
L

Logos1560

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
George Antonios said:
Yeah, we hear you: no Bible is perfect, there's no perfect word of God anywhere.
Click to expand...

Does the KJV teach you to put words in the mouths of others that they did not state and thus bear false witness?

The Church of England makers of the KJV maintained that no translation would be perfect.

Do you hide behind subjectively chosen English renderings despite no Biblical warrant for doing so?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top