"KJVO" Beginnings

[Rufus_1611]

A great quote from William Tyndale is included in this blurb, whihc also has a good summary: "Amen! And preach on, Brother Tyndale, who being dead, yet speaks!" The point has been made [ad nausea! (!~) ]that the KJV was not considered a "be all; end all" version by the translators who did it. How come some today think they knew more about the real effect and intentions of the translators, than did the translators, themselves???

Ed

(!~) Language Cop says that "ad nausea" is not a typo! This obvious point has been stated so many times, that one should be sick of having to hear it repeated over and over!

That's a beautiful quote from Tyndale and I thank God for Godly men such as he. You attributed Tyndale's quote to him talking to an "official" but you leave out the fact that this official was a papist promoting papal authority.

These great translators that were burned at the stake to give us the Word of God in the English tongue were persecuted by the Roman Catholic Church to the death.

How come some today appreciate so little, the sacrifice of the men that gave us Bibles in the KJV/TR line in such opposition of the Roman Catholic Church? Why do they appreciate them so little that they would lay down that Bible in favor of Bibles from manuscripts found in the library of the Vatican with a name such as "Vaticanus"? Did these men die in vain in the eyes of 20th and 21st century Christians? Did they die separating from the Great Whore just so that today's Christians could voluntarily return to her?

 

[Ed Edwards]

Rufus_1611: //How come some today appreciate so little,
the sacrifice of the men that gave us Bibles in
the KJV/TR line in such opposition
of the Roman Catholic Church?//

How come some today appreciate so little,
the sacrifice of Fundamentalist Protestant
Baptist translators that gave us Bibles in
the MV line in opposition to those who damned them
every step of the way?

 

[Ed Edwards]

Rufus_1611: // ... take 6 English Bibles and turn them into 1. ... //

What were the six English Bibles?

IN AWE OF THY WORD, Understanding the
King James Bible; it's Mystery & History
Letter by Letter (AV Publications Corp., 2003)
by Gail A. Riplinger.

On page 560 of AWE, these six Bibles are mentioned
imbedded in a quote of the KJV Translators
(they weren't in the quote, they are added to the quote
by AWE). The six predecessor English Bibles to the KJV
as listed on page 560 are listed below. The need for
exactly seven Bibles (no more no less) is an artifical
need for the author of this book. She quotes Psalm 12:6
(itself parenthetic to Psalm 12).

"[ Wycliffe, Tyndale, Coverdale, Great, Geneva, Bishops' ]"


On page 712, there are only six listed in the KJV developmental
line (order numbers by Ed; date numbers by Ms Riplinger):

1. Anglo Saxon pre-700
2. Wycliffe 1389
3. Tyndale 1526-1534
4. Geneva 1560-1599*
5 Bishops' 1568
6. KJV
(where did Coverdales go?)

* note several 'editions' from 1560-1599,
not just one version

This pattern is repeated 7 times up to page 726.

And on page 727 here is an interesting list of
of seven English Bibles (order numbers by Ed,
some date numbers suppressed /listed above/:

1. Gothic pre-350
2. Tyndale
3. Bishops'
4. KJV
5. TNIV, NASB
6. Jehovah Witness Version
7. Catholic Version

Does this prove the Catholic English Version
is seven-fold pure?

Then the six (not seven) English Bibles are
repeated ten times in pages 728-741,
completing chapter 20

On page 864 is this list of seven Bibles
ending with the KJVs
(numbers added by Ed):

1. Gothic
2. Anglo-Saxon
3. Pre-Wycliffe
4. Wycliffe
5a. Tyndale
5b. Coverdale
5c. Great
5d. Geneva
6. Bishops'
7. King James Bible

What were the six English Bibles?
I can't tell from AWE.
Maybe KJVO began with AWE????

 

[Rufus_1611]

Rufus_1611: // ... take 6 English Bibles and turn them into 1. ... //

What were the six English Bibles?...

From the "Rules to be Observed in the Translation of the Bible"...

Rule 1 - "The ordinary Bible read in the church, commonly called the Bishops' Bible, to be followed, and as little altered as the truth of the original will permit."

Rule 14 - "These translations to be used when they agree better with the text than the Bishops' Bible,viz. Tindall's. Matthews. Coverdale's. Whitchurch's. Geneva."​

1. Tindall
2. Matthews
3. Coverdales
4. Whitchurch
5. Geneva
6. Bishops

 

[Salamander]

Sorry, Sal, but the English of 1611 is in a style no longer used. The KJV was written for readers of its day, same as newer versions are for modern readers. To say God's word in English is frozen in the KJV is to say God retired in 1611.

Now...what sayest thou about the beginnings of KJVO?

The KJB was written for all English speaking peoples.

Anyone can better understand it verses the multiplicity of other versions.

"KJVO" began the moment some one cried out "Foul!" when they insisted upon a version with confusing wordings and the use of variantr and corrupt MSS.

 

[Pastor_Bob]

Sorry Mr. Edwards, I can't let you get away with misrepresenting the author's intent this time. Too many people take your words at face value even when you are wrong; therefore, I need to point out your misleading statement.

On page 712, there are only six listed in the KJV developmental line

Page 712 contains no list whatsoever that is described or even implied to be "in the KJV developmental line." The author is merely pointing out the consistency of pre-modern version English translations. Each of the versions listed have the same reading, in the verse cited, until the MVs arrive on the scene. That is her point, which you have deliberately taken out of context. Isn't that what you accuse the author of doing?

Do you own a copy of this book, Ed?

 

[Ed Edwards]

Ed said:

On page 712, there are only six listed
in the KJV developmental line:

1. Anglo Saxon pre-700
2. Wycliffe 1389
3. Tyndale 1526-1534
4. Geneva 1560-1599*
5 Bishops' 1568
6. KJV

* note several 'editions' from 1560-1599,
not just one version

From page 712, & for the rest of the chapter
the readings (phrases, not whole verses)
are given from frequently the
above six Bibles, but not always
(I wonder if the omitted Bibles vary from
the KJV?)

Also the 'after the KJV' Bibles are not all
listed the same, but only those that vary
from the KJV.

ON page 712, and the rest of chapter 20,
there is frequently a note such as on page 712
//See errors in HCSB, NLT, NRSV, RSV, NCV, etc.//

(recall that the HCSB came out in whole form
in 2004 - I got my pre-ordered copy in March -
yet AWE came out in 2003. So AWE reviews
a working copy of the HCSB, which the translators
of HCSB had given her.
recall HCSB = Christian Standard Bible /Holman, 2003/ )

The HCSB reads exactly like the KJV in Matthew 6:33
'Kingdom of God'. My Bible is damned for footnoting
'Kingdom of God' and saying
// Other mms omit of God //.
This statement in the HCSB
is true, but the 'other manuscripts' of which
the HCSB speaks are also damned by Ms Riplinger.
So My Bible and some source Bibles are damned
in AWE. Hello! 'damned' means condemned, disrespected,
dissed, etc. -- we are talking about a Bible here, a Bible
containing God's Holy Written Word which I believe to
be inerrant & preserved for (in the case of the HCSB)
the 21st century (2001-2100) English user.

I might also mention that this usage shows that
the footnotes of the Modern Versions (MVs) are
used my Ms Ripliger as important to the MVs
but the footnotes in the KJV are not used at all
(shown them to be unimortant) -
this is a double standard: the KJV being judged by
one criteria and the MVs being judged by another criteria.
another criteria.

Speaking of AWE

Do you own a copy of this book, Ed?

Yes. Do you own a copy of HCSB, NLT, NRSV, RSB, NCV, Etc.?
Can you check to see if page 712 of AWE is correct?

 

[franklinmonroe]

And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent: (Acts 17:30 from King James Version)

In place of "winked at" the word "overlooked" is used by ESV, NASB, Young, Darby and others. Here is the verse in several English translations--

Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent, (NKJV)

God overlooked people's former ignorance about these things, but now he commands everyone everywhere to turn away from idols and turn to him. (NLT)

In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent (NIV)

...The latter rendering of God's view of sin is incorrect. The LORD hadn't "overlooked" any man's sin. It's a man's sin that separates him from God.

From Webster's 1828 Dictionary--

WINK, v.i. [G. Wink and wince are radically one word.]

1. To shut the eyes; to close the eyelids.
They are not blind, but they wink.
2. To close and open the eyelids.
3. To give a hint by a motion of the eyelids.
Wink at the footman to leave him without a plate.
4. To close the eyelids and exclude the light.
Or wink as cowards and afraid.
5. To be dim; as a winking light.
To wink at, to connive at; to seem not to see; to tolerate; to overlook, as something not perfectly agreeable; as, to wink at faults.​

The underlying Greek word of the KJV is hupereido (Strong's#5237) means to overlook, take no notice of, not attend to according Thayer's. Now Strong's says it is from #5228 ("over") and 1492 ("to see"); to overlook, i.e. not punish:--wink at.

The KJV is correct in archaic English. The other versions are also properly translated in contemporary English. The interpretation of either seems to be that God tolerated the "ignorance" and didn't immediately send punishment but "hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by [that] man whom he hath ordained" (the next verse in Acts 17).

 

[Salamander]

Nay.

The understanding is quite clear. "Wink" is best understood to have only one eye closed while the other is still open to observe.

To "overlook" means to use both eyes to neglect the sin of worshipping gods made with mens hands.

Either God has eyes in every place beholding the evil and the good, or He isn't omniscient. God IS Omniscient.

While God chooses to ignore what He hates and is against what He's commanded, He also records the sins of men to either hold them accountable at the Great White Throne or they are forgiven and washed clean by the Blood of Christ.

To better understand the verse one MUST consider doctrine.

Else how can a sinful man be forgiven, except the Blood of Christ?

God is not playing favorites. He is longsuffering.

I already know what hupereido means and the two root words that make it up fit the latter meaning "not attend to" and "not punish" in relation to the context, doctrinally speaking.

To not attend to the idol worship is to know it's existence, just as to not punish this sin is to know it is happening, but to turn the wrath for this sin aside and therefore show mercy.

Only the Lord is capable of accomplishing this Divine attribute.

Implicating things from a man's standpoint is fruitless and incorrect.

I'm still in The Book, you're in many books.

 

[Salamander]

Extension:

Remember, we understand English from an English point of view, the modern rendering can cause confusion.

I understood the KJB rendering at first sight. The MV renderings caused me to look it up in the Strongs. The KJB remains superior.

 

[Pastor_Bob]

Ed said:
From page 712, & for the rest of the chapter
the readings are given from frequently the
above six Bibles, but not always.

That is not the point , Ed. You clearly implied that these six Bibles were listed "in the KJV developmental line" when you knew that the author did no such thing. That is dishonest, careless posting. You intentionally posted false statements to support your argument. That is wrong. It makes everything you post from here on out suspect at best.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Actually I posted three lists, all different.
It shows that Ms. Riplinger cannot keep her own
mind straight, let alone 'jive' with other folks.
What I just said is true, even if what you say is correct
about this one of three variant lists.

Here is an similiar bankrupt 'theory'.

Rev 11:3 (KJV1611 Edition):
And I will giue power vnto my two witnesses,
and they shall prophesie a thousand two hundred
and threescore dayes clothed in sackcloth.

If you run back from 1948 (new Country of Israel
founed) back 1260 years, you get back to
688AD. This was about the time that the
Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem was being built.
It took somewhere between 40 years and 200 years
to build the Dome of the Rock (DoR). So if you say
"in 688AD is when the DoR was being dedicated to
Allah. (Any worthwhile building organization
that goes on decade after decade aught
to have multiple dedications, especially when huge
donations of Gold are received)

But this line of figuring is NOT the same as
knowing that the 1260 prophecy is fulfilled by
the DoR to Israeli Nationhood.

 

[Pastor_Bob]

Actually I posted three lists, all different.
It shows that Ms. Riplinger cannot keep her own
mind straight, let alone 'jive' with other folks.
What I just said is true, even if what you say is correct
about this one of three variant lists.

This is intentionally misleading as well. Ms. Riplinger did not present the lists, with the exception of the first list interposed in the Translators quote, as lists of Bibles "in the KJV developmental line." Therefore, she has no need to "keep her own mind straight" in regard to the lists. If you're honest, you'll admit that this is indeed the case.

Here is an similiar bankrupt 'theory'.

You lost me, Ed. I have no clue how this is relevant.

 

[robycop3]

Salamander: The KJB was written for all English speaking peoples.

Of its time.

Anyone can better understand it verses the multiplicity of other versions.

Not so.

"KJVO" began the moment some one cried out "Foul!" when they insisted upon a version with confusing wordings and the use of variantr and corrupt MSS.

Actually, KJVO began when certain people got it in their heads somehow that God retired in 1611, closing the door to any further English translations being made...aided by certain authors who erected a cash cow to milk. All this happened after 1930.

 

[Salamander]

Salamander: The KJB was written for all English speaking peoples.

Of its time.

It's still relevent to today and forever will be.

It is the cornerstone of the English language by which all peoples can consult to know the true meaning of God's Word. That cannot be said by the commentaries offered to day as a wholistic way of approaching the Word of God.

Anyone can better understand it verses the multiplicity of other versions.

Not so.

Quite so. All my research shows this to be perfectly true.

In the area of "wink" it is best understood to have one eye remain open, not both eyes decidedly closed in a voluntary blindness such as "overlokk" would suggest.

Are you suggesting that, in a "better" rendering in a "modern English", God decides to be blind?

Sorry, Roby, But my God is not the blind leading the blind.

"KJVO" began the moment some one cried out "Foul!" when they insisted upon a version with confusing wordings and the use of variantr and corrupt MSS.

Actually, KJVO began when certain people got it in their heads somehow that God retired in 1611, closing the door to any further English translations being made...aided by certain authors who erected a cash cow to milk. All this happened after 1930.

Never been suggested by anyone except from your camp.

I know that God allowed the Pinnacle of the Bible to be established as a perfect work so that all discrepencies would be done away, well, except for the ones you insist upon.

The fact remains, if I read a new version and not quite sure of the meaning in context, I always consult the KJB, so do you. If this weren't true, on your part, then you wouldn't have anything else to grip about.

Now if you want to discuss "KJVO", rather than discuss "KJVO Beginnings", then be my guest to the door. I say this because of all the derogatory remarks you offer concerning the KJB and those who stand upon the Word of God.

 

[EdSutton]

With all respect to all, "KJVO Beginnings" did not start with the KJV translators, as the posted excerpts from the "to the reader" section clearly show. So it had to start later than this, by some others. And I suggest they claim a 'perfection' that the KJV version, itself, or its originators never did. And the 'standard' is strictly subjective, not objective. And it is not credible, therefore. And it assumes, as some others have said, that the translation work of the Greek and Hebrew is superior to the texts themselves, in the languages in which they were written. When did this start, I don't know exactly. I do know when it did not start, and in 1611, this view did not start.

And I do not find anywhere the KJV claims to be "the Pinnacle of the Bible"!

Ed

 

[Keith M]

Nor did it start in 1604 as was erroneously calimed in post 114.

 

[Ed Edwards]

I'd say the earlierst it could have started is when
someone rejected the KJV1873 Edition in favor of the
KJV1769 Edition ONLY. That would have been as late
as 1873 at the earliest.

But I believe 'after 1930' is before the 1% of Baptists
were aware of KJVO.

 

[Rufus_1611]

Nor did it start in 1604 as was erroneously calimed in post 114.

What was the intent then? Why did they go through all the trouble?

 

[Salamander]

With all respect to all, "KJVO Beginnings" did not start with the KJV translators, as the posted excerpts from the "to the reader" section clearly show. So it had to start later than this, by some others. And I suggest they claim a 'perfection' that the KJV version, itself, or its originators never did. And the 'standard' is strictly subjective, not objective. And it is not credible, therefore. And it assumes, as some others have said, that the translation work of the Greek and Hebrew is superior to the texts themselves, in the languages in which they were written. When did this start, I don't know exactly. I do know when it did not start, and in 1611, this view did not start.

And I do not find anywhere the KJV claims to be "the Pinnacle of the Bible"!

Ed

It is THE main reference point of ALL BV&T discussions, that is THE PINNACLE. Dance around it all you like, but the FACT remains.