Historical Proofs for KJVOnlyism

Another thread that should be short (but probably won't be).

 

It is important to note that pre-1890 comments that referred to "the Holy Bible" always referred to the KJV. So, if you're looking for a direct quote that says, "The KJV is the only Word of God," you'll not find it phrased like that from this period. All references to God's Word from that era (English speaking people of course) represented the KJV.

 

Another way to answer this is to show that Christians (1611-1881) had no problems "correcting" the King James Version and pointing out it's flaws.

If they felt it was the perfect word of God in
English they wouldn't correct the translation.

One example:

Here is Matthew Henry's (early 1700's) comments on Acts 12:4
(regarding the use of Easter):

"(2.) He would do this after Easter, meta to pascha - after the passover, certainly so it ought to be read, for it is the same word that is always so rendered; and to insinuate the introducing of a gospel-feast, instead of the passover, when we have nothing in the New Testament of such a thing, is to mingle Judaism with our Christianity."

-kman

 

Historic Confessions: Westminster and 1689 London Baptist

Notice final appeal is made to the original Hebrew and Greek..not the King James Version
(or any translation).


Chapter 1 Paragraph 8:

VIII. The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it, was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by his singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so as, in all controversies of religion, the church is finally to appeal unto them. But, because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God, who have right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them, therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come, that, the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship him in an acceptable manner; and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope.


-kman

 

What Bible did the German speaking Americans use during the Revolutionary period of the US?

 

I don't think that's true. KJV-only author Waite lists dozens (hundreds?) of English Bibles in existence before 1890. We find no evidence of anyone being *anything*-English-only, let alone KJV-only. Any Bible or group of Bibles were considered "the Holy Bible". *Usually*, people had the KJV in mind only because it was the most common, not because anyone held a KJV-only view about it.

 

To fully understand why the KJV was the only "Holy Bible" for many years,I would offer the following:

When the Church of England decided to
replace/remove the Geneva Bible in 1568 (because of its inflammatory
side notes calling the Pope the Antichrist) it did so by printing
the Bishop's Bible (which was soundly rejected by the general
population). So when another attempt was made with the printing of
the KJV, the Anglican Church leaders and the Crown had justifiable
concerns that the KJV would meet the same fate. So to insure the
acceptance of the KJV the Crown subsidized its translation and
writing as well as the printing thereof. When this did not get the
desired results they outlawed printing of the Geneva. First by
outlawing Bibles which did not contain the Apocrypha and then when
that did not work, outlawing any Bible other than the KJV. But the
Puritans/Pilgrims and associated folk still would not accept the KJV
and that resulted in the printing of the "Pirate Version" in
Amsterdam and Dort. I am told that in an effort to finally eliminate
the use of the Geneva that the Geneva side notes were finally
included in the KJV. This occurred about 1675 and of course they
were edited to remove any references to the Pope and all other anti-
Catholic notes. Also this gave the KJV the same "look" as the people
expected from their Geneva.

From this history it sounds to me as if the reason the KJV was the
Bible of choice from 1700 until 1850 was purely political. Other
versions were outlawed, the KJV had a "government" subsidy and the
KJV was "dressed up" to look like the Geneva. It moved people's
hearts because it was the only Bible they were allowed to read or
have. I believe these tactics would have insured the success of most
any Bible.

You will also notice that printing of the KJV in any location other
than the British Isles did not occur until after 1776. This also
included the other Bible versions, so from this I believe you could
blame America's Revolutionary War for the "dreaded" modern versions

(1)In 1615 Archbishop Abbot prohibited the publishing of a Bible
without an Apocrypha. 1599 Geneva Bibles did not contain the
Apocrypha and Puritans did not use the Apocrypha. Therefore this law
was directed at the publication of the Geneva Bible. (See references
below)

(2)Also in 1637 Archbishop Laud (by decree of the Star Chamber)
prohibited the publication of the Geneva Bible, . Since archbishop's
Abbot Prohibition did not eliminate the publication of the Geneva
and smuggling of this Bible into England a second law was needed to
curb its use. (See references below)

(3) As a final measure to eliminate the use of the Geneva, side
notes with objectionable content removed were added in the late
1600s.

References:

1-The Reformation of the Bible: the Bible of the Reformation, by
Hotchkiss and Price. Yale University Press 1996
2-Bruce's The English Bible
3-International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions
4-Herbert's Historical catalog of printed Bibles by the British
Foreign Bible Society 1968

 

Reasons Skeptics Should Consider Christianity, by Josh McDowell and Don Stewart:

Jason

[ February 13, 2003, 11:21 AM: Message edited by: Refreshed ]

 

McDowell and Stewart drew no conclusions, but reported it matter-of-factly. McDowell is definitely not KJV-only, but I do find him to be an accurate and trustworthy source.

As to how this quote applies, Burgon objected to the alterations in the form of well-known passages being relegated to the margin or omitted completely in the RV. I haven't read Burgon's book, but I would take it that in his vociferous objection to the RV, he believed the KJV correctly included them. This is a main point of contention between MVers and KJVers, correct?

Jason

 

Scott, from what I've read, I think you are right. Burgon was probably not KJV-only or even TR-only, but did favor the Majority readings over the Critical Text.

 

Are all the verses listed above included in the NKJV? I don't have a copy, but I'll try to find one on-line.

Jason

 

Yes, they are. That is why I find the KJVO position peculiar (wierd). The NKJV does not 'delete' verses, yet they dislike it intensely. They will say that it uses the same manuscripts as the other MVs, but that is untrue. As for some change in wording, the NKJV is 9 times out of 10 more accurate to the Greek word being translated than is the KJV. I really do not understand the dislike for the NKJV from the KJVO camp. If it was a manuscript issue to them, they would have no problem with the NKJV, since it is the only modern version based on the TR, at least the only one I know of.

Neal