How to answer this KJV Only?

[GenevanBaptist]

Which begs the qustion, as to why even the need to have the Kjv as the Geneva seemed to be a superior translation to the Kjv any ways?

Politics and power, definitely not to fulfill a supposed Psalm 12 prophecy.

 

[HankD]

Amazing, still having spirited KJVO debates.

HankD

 

[Yeshua1]

Amazing, still having spirited KJVO debates.

HankD

Heresy never really dies.....

 

[HankD]

Heresy never really dies.....

True. Sometimes it morphs a little bit.

HankD

 

[rsr]

But Bibles back then were meant for study, not just reading. That's why the Geneva Bible had so many notes and verse alternatives in the gloss.

The KJV was especially translated to be read aloud ("appointed to be read in churches"), which explains its mellifluent turn of phrase that sometimes did not accord with a strictly literal translation.

 

[rsr]

Why? He was essentially raised a Presbyterian. His approach to church governance was much closer to Presbyterian than to Episcopal. As was his soteriology.

Soteriology aside, I think you are mistaken on his ecclesiology. Yes, James was raised in the Kirk of Scotland — and learned to detest the Presbyterians (as he detested the Puritans he dealt with in England.)

The Presbyterian ideal was the rule of society by the (Presbyterian) church. James, like his great uncle Henry and cousin Elizabeth, conceived himself as head of the church in England and the episcopacy as his instrument. "No bishop, no king," he said, so he was clearly on the side of the episcopacy as opposed to the Presbyterians and even managed to introduce the bishops into the Church of Scotland.

 

[GenevanBaptist]

The KJV was especially translated to be read aloud ("appointed to be read in churches"), which explains its mellifluent turn of phrase that sometimes did not accord with a strictly literal translation.

Interesting. I had to look up 'mellifluent' - that's a new word for me!

It does explain it's 'flow' though - never considered that phrase for what you say it means.

I guess I always thought the phrase "appointed to be read in churches" meant it was 'ok'ed' to be used in the churches in contradistinction to other versions - but you put an interesting twist to my thinking - Thanks!

 

[rsr]

Tyndale required and produced a simple and plain man's translation to be slapped in the face of the medieval church and its powerprotective elite. He was, in that way, a straight Lutheran, looking for immediacy and clarity in scripture which could shake off the thick and heavy layers of medieval scholasticism and centuries of accumulated ecclesiastical dust.

The Jacobean Translators had a different commission: to evolve a scriptural rhetoric which could be both as plain and dignified as Tyndale's and as rich and resonant as any book in the language. What they did could not have been done without Tyndale, but their task reached beyond his. And the heart of this richness and resonance is in the musicality of the Jacobean Translators' work.

Tyndale was working alone, in extraordinary isolation. His only audience was himself. And surely as a result there is a slightly bumpy, stripped straightforwardness about his manner and his rhythm.

The Jacobean translation process was richly and densely social. Endless conversation and consultation flowed across the final judging committee, testing the translation not by sight but by ear. This Bible was appointed to be read in churches (and thus had no illustrations for study at home) and so its meaning had to be carried on a heard rhythm, it had to appeal to what T. S. Eliot later called 'the auditory imagination', that 'feeling for syllable and rhythm, penetrating far below the conscious levels of thought and feeling, invigorating every word'. Under these pressures, Tyndale's words become, very slightly but very significantly, musically enriched: ...

Adam Nicolson, God's Secretaries: The Making of the King James Bible, pp. 222-223, Harper Collins, 2005.

 

[Rippon]

I share the opinion that the Geneva translation is superior to the KJV of any form.
But I can't account for all the over-the-top praise for the beauty of the KJV. It's just plain clunky
more often as not. Most of the time Tyndale's translation is much easier to understand with none
of the ornate language. And the same can be said for the Geneva compared with the KJV.

 

[GenevanBaptist]

I share the opinion that the Geneva translation is superior to the KJV of any form.
But I can't account for all the over-the-top praise for the beauty of the KJV. It's just plain clunky
more often as not. Most of the time Tyndale's translation is much easier to understand with none
of the ornate language. And the same can be said for the Geneva compared with the KJV.

I feel the same, except the 1526 Tyndale I feel is a bit messier than the KJV. The 1534 Tyndale, (in the 1537 Matthews), is more like the KJV with Geneva mixt in it. Like veggy soup.

 

[Logos1560]

Soteriology aside, I think you are mistaken on his ecclesiology. Yes, James was raised in the Kirk of Scotland — and learned to detest the Presbyterians (as he detested the Puritans he dealt with in England.)

The Presbyterian ideal was the rule of society by the (Presbyterian) church. James, like his great uncle Henry and cousin Elizabeth, conceived himself as head of the church in England and the episcopacy as his instrument. "No bishop, no king," he said, so he was clearly on the side of the episcopacy as opposed to the Presbyterians and even managed to introduce the bishops into the Church of Scotland.

I agree. I have not seen or read any evidence in histories of the period and in biographies about King James that would suggest that King James I held a Presbyterian view of church government after he became king in England. He likely had to accept Presbyterian views as a boy king in Scotland, but after he become king in England he seemed to accept and hold episcopal church government views.

 

[Logos1560]

I share the opinion that the Geneva translation is superior to the KJV of any form.

There are a number of places where the KJV is better or more accurate than the Geneva Bible, and there are a number of places where the Geneva Bible is better or more accurate than the KJV.

I am not sure which of the two is better or superior overall.

 

[Logos1560]

But King James hated the Geneva Bible because of the anti-Monarchy notes in the margins.

Perhaps it was not only the marginal notes that caused King James to dislike the Geneva Bible. If it was only the notes that bothered the king, why didn’t he have the text of the Geneva Bible printed without those notes?

Many people may be unaware of the fact that the earlier English Bibles sometimes had the word "tyrant" or the word “tyranny” in the text. At Isaiah 13:11b, the 1599 Geneva Bible read: "I will cause the arrogancy of the proud to cease and will cast down the pride of tyrants." The Geneva Bible at Job 6:23 stated: "And deliver me from the enemies' hand, or ransom me out of the hand of tyrants?" Again at Isaiah 49:25, it noted: "the prey of the tyrant shall be delivered." At Job 27:13, the Geneva Bible read: "This is the portion of a wicked man with God, and the heritage of tyrants, which they shall receive of the Almighty." Its rendering at the beginning of Job 3:17 stated: "The wicked have there ceased from their tyranny." The Geneva Bible also has the word "tyrant" or "tyrants" in other verses such as Job 15:20 and Psalm 54:3. The 1535 Coverdale's Bible and the 1540 edition of the Great Bible also used these same renderings in several verses. The Bishops’ Bible has “tyrants“ at Job 6:23, Job 15:20, Job 27:13, and Psalm 54:3 and “tyrant” at Isaiah 13:11 and 16:4. At 1 Timothy 1:13, Tyndale's, Coverdale's, Matthew's, and Great Bibles all had the word "tyrant." At James 2:6, Whittingham’s, the Geneva, and Bishops’ Bibles had “oppress you by tyranny” while the Great Bible has “execute tyranny upon you.”

John N. King asserted that King James I used Psalm 105:15 “as a proof text for the divine right of kings in his personal motto, ‘Touch not mine Anointed’” (Fischlin, Royal Subjects, p. 424). Alister McGrath noted: “One of the biblical texts seized upon by the supporters of the ‘divine right of kings’ was Psalm 105:15,“ which they argued meant “the people are forbidden to take any form of violent action against God’s anointed one--in other words, the king” (Christianity’s Dangerous Idea, p. 135). Allison Jack suggested that in the KJV “Psalm 105:15 could indeed stand as a justification of the divine right of kings, which the Geneva Bible had rejected” (Bible and Literature, p. 3). For its rendering “anointed” in the text in the 1560 edition, the Geneva Bible’s marginal note stated: “Those whom I have sanctified to be my people.” McGrath pointed out that “the Geneva Bible interpreted this verse in a rather different way: kings are forbidden to oppress or take any violent action against God’s anointed people” (Christianity’s, pp. 135-136). McGrath again affirmed that “the Genevan notes argued that the term ’anointed’ was to be understood to refer to God’s people as a whole” (In the Beginning, p. 147). McGrath asserted: “According to the Geneva Bible the text was actually, if anything, a criticism of kings, in that their right to harm the people of God was being absolutely denied” (p. 148).

Concerning Genesis 10:8-9, Ovid Need wrote: “Both the text wording and the notes of the Geneva speak harshly against oppressors and tyrants, such as we have today. As I have used the Geneva and compared it with the KJV, I understand why King James wanted to rid Christians of the Geneva” (Biblical Examiner, January, 2007, p. 2). Ovid Need claimed: “An example is found in Matthew 2:6, KJV says a governor, where the Geneva says, the governor. The strong wording that demands that only one Sovereign, Jehovah God in the form of Jesus Christ was removed from the KJV” (Ibid.).

It is interesting that those Bishops that heard King James complain about the marginal notes in the Geneva Bible did not mention the fact that the Bishops’ Bible had some similar marginal notes. The Bishops’ Bible had some marginal notes that condemned tyrants or tyranny. The marginal note at Exodus 1:15 in the 1595 edition of the Bishops’ was the following: “Tyrants try divers ways to oppress the Church.“ At Exodus 1:17, the Bishops’ note stated: “It was better to obey God than man.”

Is it possible or even likely that King James I did not want believers to read how strongly God's Word condemns tyranny and tyrants? Did King James think that some might regard some of his actions as being those of a tyrant? Why did the KJV translators remove the words "tyrant,” “tyrants,” and “tyranny” from the text of the English Bible? According to the first rule given the translators, what “truth of the original” demanded this change? Is it possible that the KJV translators agreed with the view of civil government held by King James? Did the KJV translators avoid using the word "tyrant" to keep from offending King James or were they perhaps instructed to remove it? David Teems asserted that “James had seen to it that the word tyrant was absent from his Bible” (Majestie, p. 232). Melvyn Bragg claimed that the word ‘tyrant” was not “to be used” in the new Bible of King James (Book of Books, p. 42).

 

[robycop3]

On a site and debating this female. How should I answer her?

Well Paul didn't speak english did he? He had the original Greek and Hebrew... The KJV is the best english version we have - it came from the modern english translations leading up to the it. And they were all translated from various editions of what we call today the Greek Textus Receptus. Yes, changes have been made to the 1611 version since, but only minor mistakes like spelling and grammar. The doctrine remains the same as the original 1611 version. You can compare them side by side and see for yourself.

Modern Bible versions are translated from a completely different source. They are based on corrupt manuscripts like Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus, as well as Egyptian papyri discoveries... Is it really a surprise that Egypt is the source of the corruption providing us with the modern perversions like the NIV, ESV, NLT and others???

The Bibles leading up to the KJV were all translated from the Textus Receptus (the correct Greek) and are consistent with the KJV. But the more modern versions are dramatically different. So if you accept the modern bible versions as accurate, you are not only rejecting the KJV, you are also rejecting every english bible that came before it! So according to the modern perversions of God's Holy word, every english translation before the 20th Century has been wrong???

The KJV is the culmination of the english Bibles that led up to it. It is the work of almost 100 years of scholarship that gave us our english bible! That is why the earlier translations eventually went out of print, and the KJV became the standard English bible used by virtually all Christians until recently. People recognized that the KJV was the FINAL DRAFT of the english bible, so it replaced all of the rough drafts that led up to it. The bibles before the KJV were all GOOD bibles, and the KJV couldn't be the beautiful and perfectly translated bible that it is without those wonderful rough drafts.

Simply ask her for SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT for her stated opinions. And point out some of the goofs & booboos in the KJV that have been discussed here before. (She will likely respond to the Scriptural support question with "Psalm 12:6-7", forgetting those verses existed before the KJV did & they don't name any Bible translation at all.)

 

[JohnDeereFan]

How you answer the lady is, "Yes, ma'am, you have a point. Modern translations make use of textual variations ignored or rejected by the Church for most of the Church's history. Further, modern versions take translation liberties that the Church refuse to take before recent times. Recent times being the last few decades in which has seen the Church has turned its back on many ancient Christian traditions and the last few decades in which Christianity has been on the decline in America and Europe for the first time in history. Ma'am, I see I need to rethink my hostility to the KJV. But <sigh>, my pride won't let me."

I would say "While I disagree with your belief in the exclusivity of the KJV, I appreciate your love for God's Word" and leave it at that.

Conversations with KJVOs are rareful fruitful or edifying as evidenced by the nuts over on OnlineBaptist.

 

[Baptist Brother]

Conversations with KJVOs are rareful fruitful or edifying as evidenced by the nuts over on OnlineBaptist.

I don't see a need for modern translations. If I were stuck on a deserted island with only an ESV, I suppose I'd use it. But, why use it if I have a KJV?

 

[Rippon]

I don't see a need for modern translations. If I were stuck on a deserted island with only an ESV, I suppose I'd use it. But, why use it if I have a KJV?

Because it's better than the KJV!

 

[TCassidy]

Because it's better than the KJV!

"Better" is a subjective term. It may be "better" for you but may not be "better" for another Christian.

I still preach from my old KJV most of the time (but I also teach/preach from the NKJV). Not because I am ignorant enough to believe it is the "only word of God for the English speaking people" but because I like it. I have been reading it for 65 years, and my present copy has 40 years of penciled notes in the margins.

 

[Rippon]

"Better" is a subjective term. It may be "better" for you but may not be "better" for another Christian.

Objectively, the ESV is better than any form of the Jacobean Revision.

I have been reading it for 65 years, and my present copy has 40 years of penciled notes in the margins.

Ah ha! You're a Bible corrector. ;-)

 

[TCassidy]

Objectively, the ESV is better than any form of the Jacobean Revision.

That is a subjective opinion based on your choice of original language textform and your preference regarding translational philosophy.

Ah ha! You're a Bible corrector.

No, mostly just sermon or teaching notes. The bible doesn't need correcting.