The King James Version Only Position

[Rippon]

But I see the AV 1611 was largely in the most-modern English of the time.

In reality that was not the case.

In his book In The Beginning Alister McGrath has an eleven page discussion of that topic. Here are just a few snips.

"One of the most interesting aspects of the King James Bible is its use of ways of speaking that were already becoming archaic in the standard English of the first decade of the seventeenth century. By adopting these older forms, the King James Bible had the unintended effect of perpetuating ways of speaking that, strictly speaking, were dying out in everyday English speech." (p.265,266)

"The inbuilt conservatism of the translation process, reflecting the concerns of those who sponsored and directed the three 'official' English Bibles, thus led directly --yet unintentionally --to the retention of older English ways of speaking in religious contexts, creating the impression that religious language was somehow necessarily archaic." (p.269)

"...the King James Bible would actually have been perceived to be slightly old-fashioned and dated even from the first day of its publication." (p.276)

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Where is that actually made clear in the 1611 edition of the KJV?

In the 1611 edition of the KJV on the same page with the table that gives the order how the Psalms are to be read, there is also this heading: “The order how the rest of holy Scripture (beside the Psalter) is appointed to be read.“ On the next pages of the 1611 that lists the lessons from the “rest of holy Scripture” are included some readings from the Apocrypha. Thus, these pages of the liturgical calendar in the 1611 KJV assigned portions of the Apocrypha to be read in the churches. In addition, the cross references in the 1611 KJV cross reference the Apocrypha with the rest of the Bible as though it may have the same authority. In their cross references, did the KJV translators indicate any differences between when they have a reference to a book in the O. T. or N. T. and a reference to a book in the Apocrypha?

In contrast to the KJV, some of the earlier English Bibles had a clear disclaimer stating that the Apocrypha books were not inspired. KJV defender Thomas Holland acknowledged that the 1611 KJV did not have “an explicit disclaimer, as in the Geneva Bible” (Crowned, p. 94). Arthur Farstad noted: “Unlike its predecessors, which clearly stated that the apocryphal books were not part of the canon of Scripture, the 1611 Version contained no comments about the canonicity of the Apocrypha, thus leaving the question open” (The NKJV, p. 24). Before the Apocrypha in the 1560 Geneva Bible, the translators’ disclaimer began with the following: “These books that follow in order after the prophets unto the New Testament, are called Apocrypha, that is books, which were not received by a common consent to be read and expounded publicly in the Church, neither yet served to prove any point of Christian religion.“

Good points. :smilewinkgrin:

 

[Yeshua1]

In reality that was not the case.

In his book In The Beginning Alister McGrath has an eleven page discussion of that topic. Here are just a few snips.

"One of the most interesting aspects of the King James Bible is its use of ways of speaking that were already becoming archaic in the standard English of the first decade of the seventeenth century. By adopting these older forms, the King James Bible had the unintended effect of perpetuating ways of speaking that, strictly speaking, were dying out in everyday English speech." (p.265,266)

"The inbuilt conservatism of the translation process, reflecting the concerns of those who sponsored and directed the three 'official' English Bibles, thus led directly --yet unintentionally --to the retention of older English ways of speaking in religious contexts, creating the impression that religious language was somehow necessarily archaic." (p.269)

"...the King James Bible would actually have been perceived to be slightly old-fashioned and dated even from the first day of its publication." (p.276)

To me, it is extemely telling that even the translators of the 1611 neither saw that as being th final and [erfect english translation, as they sought to build on and improve prior versions, and would have supported additinal revisions and translations based upon their own work!

So even they did not hold to a KJVO position...

 

[robycop3]

The KJVO myth, like other "This-Version-Only" myths, is entirely man-made. A difference is, in modern times, some authors saw a cash cow in KJVO and made an industry out of it. But its falsehood still remains.