How did the Modern KJVO Movement Get Started?

[Phillip]

Originally posted by Jim Ward:
Cranston,

I've only seen that joke taken seriously taken and spread by Bible doubters such as yourself.

Now if you can provide rock solid evidence (you know what that is I hope) that such a statment was made in full seriousness by a Bible beleiver, then that is a different story. So far though, your camp has yet to provide such.

Of course the mv cry of "give us the next version off the presses" is so much better isn't it? (yes I know that none of you have said any such thing)

Don't keep jumping on Cranston; I have actually heard that statement by a little (well-meaning) Bible believing woman in my own church. Bless her heart, she really thought it was true and didn't understand until I finally taught a (what we used to call "training union") class and explained the origins of different translations through the Originals through Septuagint, the Vulgate, through the Modern Versions. We wrapped up the classes with discussions of different MV's and their translation philosophy (word for word, vs thought for thought, and anywhere in-between including discussing the paraphrase versions aka Living Bible). The people left with a great knowledge of where their translations originated and how the word of God is carried forth. Most were older people and they loved the class.

I have a large collection of old Bibles including an original German Guttenberg and a KJV 1611 printed in 1612, plus numerous pages from Geneva and earlier translations. They loved looking at these. The interesting part; however, was watching the people's shock at the difference between the KJV 1611 and their KJV. The main statement made by most people was: "You can't even read this!"

 

[mioque]

"I have a large collection of old Bibles including an original German Gutenberg"

You're that wealthy?!

 

[rsr]

Phillip, if I took you to Pete's, would you show me these treasures?

 

[skanwmatos]

Originally posted by Phillip:
By the way, this is in the public domain now. For all of you KJVO folks that like to gripe about the NIV having a copyright---FYI, the KJV contained a copyright when it was written and it was broken by immigrants in the "New World" who did not abide by the laws of England.

The above information is incorrect. The immigrants to the "New World" did not break the copyright on the KJV. When the US became an independent nation the laws of Great Britain no longer applied on our shores, and, as the "Crown Patent" did not meet the criteria under International Copyright Law, the British copyright on the KJV applies only to Great Britain and those members of the Commonwealth who voluntarily follow the British law.

 

[rsr]

Well, then, we must all realize this is no biblical justification for any translation — or any set of manuscripts.

 

[robycop3]

The AV DID contain the king's TAX STAMP for awhile, placed in each copy at the suggestion of KJ's Finance Minister(or whatever they called the title then), Sir Robert Cecil. This tax was paid by whoever bought bought the AV.

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by rsr:
Phillip, if I took you to Pete's, would you show me these treasures?

I would show you without going to Pete's, but YES, YES, yummy. I see you know fine food!

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by skanwmatos:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Phillip:
By the way, this is in the public domain now. For all of you KJVO folks that like to gripe about the NIV having a copyright---FYI, the KJV contained a copyright when it was written and it was broken by immigrants in the "New World" who did not abide by the laws of England.

The above information is incorrect. The immigrants to the "New World" did not break the copyright on the KJV. When the US became an independent nation the laws of Great Britain no longer applied on our shores, and, as the "Crown Patent" did not meet the criteria under International Copyright Law, the British copyright on the KJV applies only to Great Britain and those members of the Commonwealth who voluntarily follow the British law. </font>[/QUOTE]You are correct to a certain point, but as a student who is working to obtain his patent agent license, I can say with confidence regardless of the way I phrased my other post, there was no such thing as a "Copyright" law in England at the time. Only an order from the king not to print the Bible for a 100 year period. And yes, Americans did break the English law because if you will check the dates AND history, you will find that the New World was still a territory of England when the first prints came out. Copyright law did not come until later when it was discovered that it was needed, very similar to patent law.

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by mioque:
"I have a large collection of old Bibles including an original German Gutenberg"

You're that wealthy?!

Well, actually I said the wrong thing because I was writing so fast. I do not believe it was printed BY Guttenberg, but was printed on a Guttenberg press in the early 1700's. I do not know the actual publisher. No I'm not rich. Only in the Lord!!!!!

Well, I don't think it is worth as much as you think since it was published in the early 1700's and not the 1600's. It is a beautiful book with many woodcut pictures. It is very fragile and big, and the metal claps have long gone.

Somebody drew a sailing ship in detail on the front two blank pages with a pencil. I can only imagine when it was drawn because the ship is drawn with detail and shows that of a ship dated in the 1700's.

But, I do have a 1612 KJV and many pages some of the Bishop's Bible, Geneva, KJV (different 1600 and 1700 dates). Too many to count KJV teacher's Bibles dating in the 1800's among some written during the civil war. I have an 1890 or 1880 Baptist Hymnal. I haven't even heard of the hymns in it.

They are still treasures to me because anything actually read or touched by someone 300 years ago is special to me.

 

[skanwmatos]

Originally posted by Phillip:
And yes, Americans did break the English law because if you will check the dates AND history, you will find that the New World was still a territory of England when the first prints came out.

Sorry, but that also is wrong. The first King James Version of the bible to be printed in the new world was done by Robert Aitken of Philadelphia in 1782.

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by skanwmatos:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Phillip:
And yes, Americans did break the English law because if you will check the dates AND history, you will find that the New World was still a territory of England when the first prints came out.

Sorry, but that also is wrong. The first King James Version of the bible to be printed in the new world was done by Robert Aitken of Philadelphia in 1782. </font>[/QUOTE]Funny how we all want to be right.

The first "official" version!

 

[robycop3]

Facts are:

There were KJVOs here and there ever since 1611.

There were a few more KJVOs in the 19th century, especially after the RV was published, but it was still a rather minor thing.

The modern monster began with Ben Wilkinson's book and has been built upon ever since, especially since the advent of the NIV. Virtually every KJVO argument now used is based upon something written by Wilkinson, or by those authors who built upon his work almost to the point of plagiarism, with some fantasies of their own minds added. Much of their work has degenerated from the fantasy mode to the dishonesty mode, led by the works of Riplinger and Ruckman.

 

[skanwmatos]

Originally posted by Phillip:
Funny how we all want to be right.

The first "official" version!

No, the first KJV printed in the US was printed in the year I stated. What is an "official" version and how does it differ from an "unofficial" version? And, if you have evidence of a KJV printed in the US prior to the date I posted please give us that evidence so it can be checked out. If it is correct you will have proven every historian, and even the US Library of Congress to be wrong.

 

[skanwmatos]

Originally posted by robycop3:
Facts are:

There were KJVOs here and there ever since 1611.

Where did you get those "facts?" What evidence can you supply supporting your "facts" that there were KJVOs prior to the publication of the REV in 1865?

The modern monster began with Ben Wilkinson's book and has been built upon ever since, especially since the advent of the NIV.

Even if you repeat that baseless assertion a thousand times it will still not be true. KJVO predated Wilkinson by at least 65 years. That has been conclusively proven.

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

Originally posted by Phillip:
But, I do have a 1612 KJV &lt;snip&gt;

If you have a REAL 1612 Authorised Version then it is worth some serious money.....

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

Originally posted by skanwmatos:
The above information is incorrect. The immigrants to the "New World" did not break the copyright on the KJV. When the US became an independent nation the laws of Great Britain no longer applied on our shores, and, as the "Crown Patent" did not meet the criteria under International Copyright Law, the British copyright on the KJV applies only to Great Britain and those members of the Commonwealth who voluntarily follow the British law.

Sounds a lot like piracy, doesn't it?
We are going to be our own country, so your copyright laws don't apply to us.

Isn't that the same thing about which Microsoft is complaining? Isn't J.K. Rowling (did I spell that correctly?) is complaining about the Harry Potter books being illegally printed in China?

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

Originally posted by Jim Ward:
Of course the mv cry of "give us the next version off the presses" is so much better isn't it? (yes I know that none of you have said any such thing)

This is totally nonsensical.
So, to usurp your own statement and use it on your claim:
Now if you can provide rock solid evidence (you know what that is I hope) that such a statment was made in full seriousness by a Bible beleiver [sic], then that is a different story. So far though, your camp has yet to provide such.

Who was it that cried "give us the next version off the presses" on this board? Who even implied this statement? I notice what you wrote at the end of the statement: since that is true, why did you even bother?

By the way, I am still waiting to see your Scriptural support for KJV-Onlyism.

[ March 08, 2004, 09:15 PM: Message edited by: Baptist in Richmond ]

 

[skanwmatos]

Originally posted by Baptist in Richmond:
Sounds a lot like piracy, doesn't it?
We are going to be our own country, so your copyright laws don't apply to us.

It is the International Copyright Laws that preclude the Crown Patent being enforced internationally. The Crown Patent does not meet the criteria established by the International Commission on Copyrights.

Isn't that the same thing about which Microsoft is complaining? Isn't J.K. Rowling (did I spell that correctly?) is complaining about the Harry Potter books being illegally printed in China?

China is a member State of the United Nations and thus is signatory to the International Copyright agreements. China is violating its own laws by allowing the infringement.

 

[Craigbythesea]

Originally posted by skanwmatos:
The modern KJVO movement began with the publication of the "Revised English Version" by the American Baptist Publication Society in 1865. This "improved" version of the New Testament was the work of Alvah Hovey, John Broadus and Henry Weston.

It was the first English version translated from Greek texts other than the Textus Receptus (using the work of Greisbach and Lachmann - this was before the publication of the Greek Testament according to Westcott and Hort). Many Baptists took strong exception to the new version based on two criticisms, the first being the underlying Greek text, and the second being the abandonment of the word Baptize, etc., in favor of immerse, etc. This was considered tantamount to blasphemy to Baptists, particularly in the south, where Landmarkism was in full bloom.

The out cry against the REV was so great the American Baptist Publication Society issued another edition using the traditional words "baptize" etc., but the damage had already been done, and both editions failed to sell sufficient copies to pay for printing and publishing.

skanwmatos,

What is your source for this information? Compare the following:

The KJV by its four-fold reference to the Holy Spirit as "it" set a precedent that had and even yet has a long and pernicious life. Error dies hard, especially once entrenched. When later scholars set to revise the KJV, they often left these four passages uncorrected. Henry Alford's mid-19th century revised English version left the KJV uncorrected in all four verses. The American Bible Union (Baptist) revised New Testament of 1865 (2nd edition, 1867) also let this old error stand uncorrected in all four verses. Even the later revision of this translation done by Henry Weston, Alvah Hovey and John Broadus (published ca. 1889) leaves "it" in John 1:32, though Romans 8:16, 26 read "himself" and I Peter 1:11 has "he."

Source: "THE SPIRIT ITSELF," OR,
THE GREATEST DEFECT IN THE KING JAMES VERSION
By Doug Kutilek

 

[skanwmatos]

Originally posted by Craigbythesea:
What is your source for this information?

I own both editions and the information is contained in the "PREFATORY NOTE" starting on page 3.

Compare the following:

The KJV by its four-fold reference to the Holy Spirit as "it" set a precedent that had and even yet has a long and pernicious life. Error dies hard, especially once entrenched. When later scholars set to revise the KJV, they often left these four passages uncorrected. Henry Alford's mid-19th century revised English version left the KJV uncorrected in all four verses. The American Bible Union (Baptist) revised New Testament of 1865 (2nd edition, 1867) also let this old error stand uncorrected in all four verses. Even the later revision of this translation done by Henry Weston, Alvah Hovey and John Broadus (published ca. 1889) leaves "it" in John 1:32, though Romans 8:16, 26 read "himself" and I Peter 1:11 has "he."

Source: "THE SPIRIT ITSELF," OR,
THE GREATEST DEFECT IN THE KING JAMES VERSION
By Doug Kutilek

I am not sure what your point is? What does Kutilek's remarks have to do with what I posted?

And, just an aside, every first year Greek student knows the pronoun referring to the Holy Spirit is neuter, and the KJV translators translated it exactly as it appears in the Greek. Only somebody with an idiotic agenda would claim that is a "mistake."