• 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!

How Original Is The KJV?

rbell

Active Member
Lukasaurus said:
I am sick of seeing Christians attack the words of God. It's almost like they are denying the deity of Jesus Christ or something. It breaks my heart to see men willingly attack and reject God's words.

First of all, why not grow up a bit and don't be so petulant.

Secondly, why not give examples of how we are attacking God's word. Many of us use the KJV along with other versions, and love it dearly. That, sir, is a false attack, and you owe many an apology.
 

EdSutton

New Member
Rippon said:
I am not a "corrupter of God's Word".God's Word is not encapsulated in a singular form.God's Word is in multitudes of translations in English and many other languages.

You claim to be a follower of the KJV.Yet you deny many teachings of the KJV in your bad conduct on the BB."Judge not lest ye be judged". Are you familiar with that injunction?
Lukasaurus said:
Actually I'm not familiar with that verse. And neither is God. And neither should you be, for it is NOT IN ANY BIBLE ANYWHERE IN ANY LANGUAGE.

Judge not lest ye be judged is not a Bible verse, in any version.

The verse is "Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

Now, we are coming at this from two different sides. The way I see it, I have removed the beam of 100 different versions from my own eye. I want to remove the mote from yours.

You want to stick a beam in my eye that will cause me to say "Oh, where is God's where, it is here a little, there a little, in this version and that version, and God's word is spiritual and does not exist in one book".

I'm not even judging you. I only said what the Bible said. [personal attack and attack on Bible deleted]

I am sick of seeing Christians attack the words of God. It's almost like they are denying the deity of Jesus Christ or something. It breaks my heart to see men willingly attack and reject God's words.

[Irrelevant parts snipped by me!]
Actually, Rippon did quote "that verse" here (Is that even relevant in itself, considering the Bible was not divided into 'chapters' and 'verses' to begin with, apart from some of the Psalms divided into individual Psalms, and the earliest copies of Isaiah are divided by paragraphs under Hebrew letters, as first, chapter divisions of any parts of the Bible and later, verse divisions don't appear until after 1200 AD, in any manner that we would recognize, today.), although he did not even claim to, as he asked a question about "that injunction." (By contrast, you actually quoted 3 verses, while claiming they were one verse, FTR.) :rolleyes:

Notwithstanding that, you stated that the verse is not found in the Bible. And, according to your own words, you are "sick of seeing Christians attack the words of God." I am, as well, and those words Rippon cited are the words of God, as well, for those exact words are, in fact, "a Bible verse, in any version."
Judge not lest ye be judged. (Mt. 7:1 - TNT)
Whaddya' know! It is actually even in English. I suggest God is familiar with that verse, after all, even though Lukasaurus apparently is not.

BTW, the claim you imply about 100 versions is ridiculous, to say the least. I have absolutely "zero doubt" that you, me, or anyone else on the BB (or in history, anytime, for that matter, has read through anything remotely approaching 100 different Bible versions, ever. I'm not even sure I have ever made it through one, completely, in any systematic fashion, although I have read easily a half-dozen books, through, at one sitting, and have read complete fairly 'long' books through, in the same fashion, such as Matthew, Revelation, Ezra, and Daniel, and have covered all of Genesis in two 'sittings.'

Ed
 

ktn4eg

New Member
Ed Edwards said:
// If there was a written "Word of God" in existence in the English language before AD 1611, why would have it been necessary for God to have a completely new "Word of God" published in AD 1611? //

IMHO there was a written "Word of God" in existence in the English Language before AD 1611. It was called THE GENEVA BIBLE. I have a reprint of the Geneva Bible, 1560 Edition (complete with the tiny print margin commentary that upset a MAN called 'King James the I of Scotland and King James the VI of England' so much that James 6th of Scotland had a Bible translated and named after him) and I have a electronic copy from e-sword.com which apparently is the 1599 Edition of the Geneva Bible without the commentary. This 'Word of God' called the Geneva Bible made it unnecessary for God to commission a new Bible. So MAN determened a new Bible was needed, not God. God has a Nature to make 'The Word of God' succeed, so the KJVs were very successful in causing souls to be saved into the Kingdom of our Lord and Savior, Messiah Jesus.

Bro. Ed,

What you've written is very possibly true.

Short of presenting an extensive history of what's now referred to as the English Puritan movement that developed during the Tudor & Stuart monarchies, I'll just say that many of the established "High Church" Anglican officials had varying degrees of disdain for several within the Puritan ranks.

This dislike of the Puritans was only exacerbated by the elevation to the throne of the Roman Catholic Queen Mary in 1553. Many Puritans fled to various places within continental Europe. Probably the most influential group of them was the one that wound up in the Swiss city of Geneva, which at that time was practically a theocracy under the influence of John Calvin.

The theology of most of these transplanted English refugees was for the most part in basic agreement with that of Calvin, and thus they tended to prosper almost as a separate colony in SW Switzerland, at least until Mary's reign ended in 1558.

About the most notable accomplishment of this band of Englishmen was the translating and publishing of the Geneva Bible.

One of the main reasons why Stuart King James I of England (who'd already been crowned as James VI of Scotland) was so receptive to the so-called "millennial petition" of 1603 which, among other things, called for a new translation of the Bible, was because he was so upset with most of the very negative commentary notations regarding so many of the OT monarchs found in the early editions of the Geneva Bible, that he wanted to do all he could to erase from all Englishmen's memories what happened when a new monarchial dynasty took control.

For almost 120 years prior to James's ascention to the English throne that nation had been under the control of five succeeding Tudor monarchs, and his own claim to the English throne was not without opposition from other rival claimants.

Most of the English Puritans were not seriously opposed to the idea of a monarchy, nor, for the most part were the majority interested at that time in completely separating from the established Church of England.

But since a newer translation of the Bible was a part of this petition, James I was very pleased to "Authorize" such a venture, PROVIDED, there would be no marginal notes that were commentary in nature!

However, among the general populace of Protestant England of AD 1611 (and for several years following), the translation of choice was NOT the KJV, but rather the Geneva Bible. As with a lot of things even today, it usually takes a while for "something new" to really catch on.

I'll conclude by mentioning two fairly recent works that have shed much light on the life and times of the people who translated the KJV:

Alister McGrath's In The Beginning: The Story of the King James Bible and How It Changed a Nation, a Language, and a Culture [Doubleday (c) 2001]; and Adam Nicholson's God's Secretaries: The Making of the King James Bible [Harper Collins (c) 2003].
 

robycop3

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Askjo said:
Incorrect! "Star" on Isaiah 14:12 was not there in Hebrew text. Star in Hebrew is Kokav. Morning star is an interpretation and not a translation. Morning star is a false translation.

Then the AV men blew it in their marginal note, "Or, O day starre".
 

robycop3

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Lukasaurus said:
Anyone that attacks the word of God will bring judgment or loss of rewards upon themself.

I'm not going to even argue here. What was the point of the original post? Since every KJB Believer already knows that the King James Bible was the seventh purification of God's word in English, you aren't telling us anything new.

What do you want?

Here are some new things.

NEW King James Version
NEW International Version
NEW World Translation
NEW Revised Standard Version
NEW American Standard Version

Do you take solace that these versions are different from each other or something?

I assume that your original post was a rebuke to KJBO people. Do you really think we believe the Bible just fell out of the sky one day?

It's godless attacks like this that defines modern Christianity. Everything is compared to the King James Bible. If it's different from the KJB, then it must be good. That is the modern philosophy.

For I am not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.

[personal attack and attack on the Bible deleted]

Sorry, Luke, the KJV was *NOT* the 7th "purification" of anything. God's words were pure the instant he said them. They have NEVER needed "purified", and besides that, how could MAN purify anything of GOD'S?

In addition, the KJV was the 9th or 10th English version with a notable readership. There were more versions made, but many were only local in their distributorship. You KJVOs arrivet at "7" by picking-n-choosing only 6 versions among the several made before the KJV. More pencil magic.

Luke, you really need to examine the material found in those pro-KJVO boox for VERACITY insteada just blindly accepting it as fact. A close exam will reveal far more baloney than beef.

But back to the theme of this thread. The KJV was mostly a revision of existing versions, especially the Tyndale NT, the complete Bishop's Bible, and to some extent the Geneva Bible minus its many footnotes. Its translators worked with both the ancient mss AND some prior translations in fronta them. Now, while there wasn't a great deal of originality there, I see nothing wrong in that.

But the fact remains that neither the AV1611 nor its predecessors have one quark of Scriptural support for the KJVO doctrine.
 

Rippon

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
robycop3 said:
Luke, you really need to examine the material found in those pro-KJVO boox for VERACITY insteada just blindly accepting it as fact. A close exam will reveal far more baloney than beef.

But back to the theme of this thread. The KJV was mostly a revision of existing versions, especially the Tyndale NT, the complete Bishop's Bible, and to some extent the Geneva Bible minus its many footnotes. Its translators worked with both the ancient mss AND some prior translations in fronta them. Now, while there wasn't a great deal of originality there, I see nothing wrong in that.

But the fact remains that neither the AV1611 nor its predecessors have one quark of Scriptural support for the KJVO doctrine.

Yeah.What he just said.
 

robycop3

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Luke:I am sick of seeing Christians attack the words of God. It's almost like they are denying the deity of Jesus Christ or something. It breaks my heart to see men willingly attack and reject God's words.

Well, here's ya a hit of Alka-Seltzer, & a dab of Norvask for yer heart!

We are NOT attacking God's word. we are attacking the KJVO doctrine, which is DEFINITELY NOT God's word. And I don't think any Baptist here rejects the KJV...we simply are not bound to just the one version, and God Himself isn't so bound, either!

Your KJV sez: " Wherein I suffer trouble, as an evil doer, even unto bonds; but the word of God is not bound.(2 Tim. 2:9)

Luke, can you provide any SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT for KJVO? If not, it still stands as incorrect, a doctrine of religion NOT FROM GOD. So, please, cease & desist from trying to equate an attack against KJVO with an attack against God's word. That hippo just won't fly.
 

annsni

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Askjo said:
"O day starre" is on marginal note, NOT in the text.

From the KJV translators themselves:

REASONS MOVING US TO SET DIVERSITY OF SENSES IN THE MARGIN, WHERE THERE IS GREAT PROBABILITY FOR EACH

Some peradventure would have no variety of senses to be set in the margin, lest the authority of the Scriptures for deciding of controversies by that show of uncertainty, should somewhat be shaken. But we hold their judgment not to be sound in this point. For though, "whatsoever things are necessary are manifest," as S. Chrysostom saith, [S. Chrysost. in II. Thess. cap. 2.] and as S. Augustine, "In those things that are plainly set down in the Scriptures, all such matters are found that concern Faith, Hope, and Charity." [S. Aug. 2. de doctr. Christ. cap. 9.] Yet for all that it cannot be dissembled, that partly to exercise and whet our wits, partly to wean the curious from the loathing of them for their every-where plainness, partly also to stir up our devotion to crave the assistance of God's spirit by prayer, and lastly, that we might be forward to seek aid of our brethren by conference, and never scorn those that be not in all respects so complete as they should be, being to seek in many things ourselves, it hath pleased God in his divine providence, here and there to scatter words and sentences of that difficulty and doubtfulness, not in doctrinal points that concern salvation, (for in such it hath been vouched that the Scriptures are plain) but in matters of less moment, that fearfulness would better beseem us than confidence, and if we will resolve upon modesty with S. Augustine, (though not in this same case altogether, yet upon the same ground) Melius est debitare de occultis, quam litigare de incertis, [S. Aug li. S. de Genes. ad liter. cap. 5.] "it is better to make doubt of those things which are secret, than to strive about those things that are uncertain." There be many words in the Scriptures, which be never found there but once, (having neither brother or neighbor, as the Hebrews speak) so that we cannot be holpen by conference of places. Again, there be many rare names of certain birds, beasts and precious stones, etc. concerning the Hebrews themselves are so divided among themselves for judgment, that they may seem to have defined this or that, rather because they would say something, than because they were sure of that which they said, as S. Jerome somewhere saith of the Septuagint. Now in such a case, doth not a margin do well to admonish the Reader to seek further, and not to conclude or dogmatize upon this or that peremptorily? For as it is a fault of incredulity, to doubt of those things that are evident: so to determine of such things as the Spirit of God hath left (even in the judgment of the judicious) questionable, can be no less than presumption. Therefore as S. Augustine saith, that variety of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures: [S. Aug. 2. de doctr. Christian. cap. 14.] so diversity of signification and sense in the margin, where the text is no so clear, must needs do good, yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded. We know that Sixtus Quintus expressly forbiddeth, that any variety of readings of their vulgar edition, should be put in the margin, [Sixtus 5. praef. Bibliae.] (which though it be not altogether the same thing to that we have in hand, yet it looketh that way) but we think he hath not all of his own side his favorers, for this conceit. They that are wise, had rather have their judgments at liberty in differences of readings, than to be captivated to one, when it may be the other. If they were sure that their high Priest had all laws shut up in his breast, as Paul the Second bragged, [Plat. in Paulo secundo.] and that he were as free from error by special privilege, as the Dictators of Rome were made by law inviolable, it were another matter; then his word were an Oracle, his opinion a decision. But the eyes of the world are now open, God be thanked, and have been a great while, they find that he is subject to the same affections and infirmities that others be, that his skin is penetrable, and therefore so much as he proveth, not as much as he claimeth, they grant and embrace.
 

Ed Edwards

<img src=/Ed.gif>
annsni said:
From the KJV translators themselves:

REASONS MOVING US TO SET DIVERSITY OF SENSES IN THE MARGIN, WHERE THERE IS GREAT PROBABILITY FOR EACH

Some peradventure would have no variety of senses to be set in the margin, lest the authority of the Scriptures for deciding of controversies by that show of uncertainty, should somewhat be shaken. But we hold their judgment not to be sound in this point. For though, "whatsoever things are necessary are manifest," as S. Chrysostom saith, [S. Chrysost. in II. Thess. cap. 2.] and as S. Augustine, "In those things that are plainly set down in the Scriptures, all such matters are found that concern Faith, Hope, and Charity." [S. Aug. 2. de doctr. Christ. cap. 9.] Yet for all that it cannot be dissembled, that partly to exercise and whet our wits, partly to wean the curious from the loathing of them for their every-where plainness, partly also to stir up our devotion to crave the assistance of God's spirit by prayer, and lastly, that we might be forward to seek aid of our brethren by conference, and never scorn those that be not in all respects so complete as they should be, being to seek in many things ourselves, it hath pleased God in his divine providence, here and there to scatter words and sentences of that difficulty and doubtfulness, not in doctrinal points that concern salvation, (for in such it hath been vouched that the Scriptures are plain) but in matters of less moment, that fearfulness would better beseem us than confidence, and if we will resolve upon modesty with S. Augustine, (though not in this same case altogether, yet upon the same ground) Melius est debitare de occultis, quam litigare de incertis, [S. Aug li. S. de Genes. ad liter. cap. 5.] "it is better to make doubt of those things which are secret, than to strive about those things that are uncertain." There be many words in the Scriptures, which be never found there but once, (having neither brother or neighbor, as the Hebrews speak) so that we cannot be holpen by conference of places. Again, there be many rare names of certain birds, beasts and precious stones, etc. concerning the Hebrews themselves are so divided among themselves for judgment, that they may seem to have defined this or that, rather because they would say something, than because they were sure of that which they said, as S. Jerome somewhere saith of the Septuagint. Now in such a case, doth not a margin do well to admonish the Reader to seek further, and not to conclude or dogmatize upon this or that peremptorily? For as it is a fault of incredulity, to doubt of those things that are evident: so to determine of such things as the Spirit of God hath left (even in the judgment of the judicious) questionable, can be no less than presumption. Therefore as S. Augustine saith, that variety of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures: [S. Aug. 2. de doctr. Christian. cap. 14.] so diversity of signification and sense in the margin, where the text is no so clear, must needs do good, yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded. We know that Sixtus Quintus expressly forbiddeth, that any variety of readings of their vulgar edition, should be put in the margin, [Sixtus 5. praef. Bibliae.] (which though it be not altogether the same thing to that we have in hand, yet it looketh that way) but we think he hath not all of his own side his favorers, for this conceit. They that are wise, had rather have their judgments at liberty in differences of readings, than to be captivated to one, when it may be the other. If they were sure that their high Priest had all laws shut up in his breast, as Paul the Second bragged, [Plat. in Paulo secundo.] and that he were as free from error by special privilege, as the Dictators of Rome were made by law inviolable, it were another matter; then his word were an Oracle, his opinion a decision. But the eyes of the world are now open, God be thanked, and have been a great while, they find that he is subject to the same affections and infirmities that others be, that his skin is penetrable, and therefore so much as he proveth, not as much as he claimeth, they grant and embrace.

But the Doctrine of Ignorance (God blesses ignorant /not knowing/ more than knowledge) insists that we must not have translator footnotes in Bibles. Personally, knowing what a translator footnote is, I believe the translator footnotes in my Bibles.
 

Plain Old Bill

New Member
Well I'll tell ya what slays me. The KJVO folks sound the rally cry of JKB 1611 while reading and quoting from the 1789 KJ translation.The first big tip off is the spelling.I wonder how many KJVO's actually even own a 1611 King James translation.:laugh:
 

Plain Old Bill

New Member
Oh by the way my good friend Lukasarus is going to a school that uses a lot of Ruckman material in case you wonder where he gets some of his ideas.
 

ktn4eg

New Member
Plain Old Bill said:
Well I'll tell ya what slays me. The KJVO folks sound the rally cry of JKB 1611 while reading and quoting from the 1789 KJ translation.The first big tip off is the spelling.I wonder how many KJVO's actually even own a 1611 King James translation.:laugh:

If they really do have an authentic, printed in AD 1611, edition of the KJV, I wonder how much time these folks spend reading the Apocrytha that was included in it--and thus (following their own line of reasoning) of necessity must also be God-breathed, infallible, and completely without any admixture of error?
 

robycop3

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Plain Old Bill said:
Oh by the way my good friend Lukasarus is going to a school that uses a lot of Ruckman material in case you wonder where he gets some of his ideas.

It SHOWS! Prolly a dose of Riplinger as well.
 

franklinmonroe

Active Member
Jerome has made us aware that the intelligent author David Norton in his A Textual History of the King James Bible does use the acronym KJB (from the Introduction) --
The text of the KJB is commonly thought to be the fixed and stable work of one collection of translators. This is not the case...​

I believe that what is being suggested by his application of King James 'Bible' (KJB) is that there is no singular edition that can be properly called the King James Version, therefore a collective term is required to address all the revisions of similar text. In practice this means that no one reads from a KJB, but rather, an individual would read from a particular KJV where the publisher & date (and perhaps other information) is vital to establish exactly which text is being claimed. This is also true of some other Bible versions besides the King James, but perhaps no other Bible text has BOTH actually often been edited from it's original publication AND widely assumed to have never been modified.
 

Ed Edwards

<img src=/Ed.gif>
franklinmonroe said:
Jerome has made us aware that the intelligent author David Norton in his A Textual History of the King James Bible does use the acronym KJB (from the Introduction) --
The text of the KJB is commonly thought to be the fixed and stable work of one collection of translators. This is not the case...​
I believe that what is being suggested by his application of King James 'Bible' (KJB) is that there is no singular edition that can be properly called the King James Version, therefore a collective term is required to address all the revisions of similar text. In practice this means that no one reads from a KJB, but rather, an individual would read from a particular KJV where the publisher & date (and perhaps other information) is vital to establish exactly which text is being claimed. This is also true of some other Bible versions besides the King James, but perhaps no other Bible text has BOTH actually often been edited from it's original publication AND widely assumed to have never been modified.

Amen, Brother Franklinmonroe -- Preach it! :thumbs:

Here is the way I like to say it:

All VALID English KJV Bibles
Collectively and Individually
contain and are
the Inerrant and Perfect
Written Word of God
preserved by Divine Appointment
for the generation in which they are translated.


 

robycop3

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
A blessing of this time is that virtually all the older English Bible versions are available to us now, either electronically or in repro printings. One can easily compare almost any English version with almost any other, old or new.
 

Jerome

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
franklinmonroe said:
I believe that what is being suggested by [David Norton's] application of King James 'Bible' (KJB) is that there is no singular edition that can be properly called the King James Version, therefore a collective term is required to address all the revisions of similar text. In practice this means that no one reads from a KJB, but rather, an individual would read from a particular KJV where the publisher & date (and perhaps other information) is vital to establish exactly which text is being claimed.
KJB is simply Norton's preferred term for the 1611 and/or subsequent editions, considered together or individually.
 
Top