The King James Version Only Position

[evangelist6589]

Frankly I am not sure how anyone can hold such a view. I mean if there was NIV Only or ESV Only groups I would be against them as well. Has any of the KJVO actually read the 1611 preface?

Now what can be more available thereto, than to deliver God's book unto God's people in a tongue which they understand?
But how shall men meditate in that, which they cannot understand? How shall they understand that which is kept close in an unknown tongue?

Indeed without translation into the vulgar tongue, the unlearned are but like children at Jacob's well (which is deep) [John 4:11] without a bucket or something to draw with;

The original translators encouraged the updating of the Bible!!! The ESV follows the same translation line as the KJV yet its rejected in KJVO churches and looked down upon.

From the Mind of God to the Mind of Man, James Williams, pp. 153.

The scriptures must be in the vulgar language of the people… God's Word should be in the language of the people so they can understand its commands, savor its promises, relive the Bible stories, and carefully study its truth. This is extremely difficult when over four thousand words in the King James Bible are not found in even the best of our one volume English dictionaries today. In their day, the KJV translators were opposed by many for making a new translation of the Scriptures. The Geneva Bible was good enough! Yet, many obsolete expressions were already making that copy of the written word very difficult to understand.

Some examples in the KJV of ancient language not in the vulgar tongue

James 2:3 (KJV) 3And ye have respect to him that weareth the gay clothing, and say unto him, Sit thou here in a good place; and say to the poor, Stand thou there, or sit here under my footstool:

Numbers 23:22 (KJV) 22God brought them out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn.

Numbers 24:8 (KJV) 8God brought him forth out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn: he shall eat up the nations his enemies, and shall break their bones, and pierce them through with his arrows.

Job 39:9 (KJV) 9Will the unicorn be willing to serve thee, or abide by thy crib?

Isaiah 13:21 (KJV) 21But wild beasts of the desert shall lie there; and their houses shall be full of doleful creatures; and owls shall dwell there, and satyrs shall dance there.

Three questions for King James Only

1. Which KJV is inspired, since it was revised ten times, the last being in 1850?
2. Why do KJV only people reject the apocrypha, the original 1611 version contained the apocrypha?
3. WHEN was the KJV "given by inspiration of God" – 1611, or any of the KJV major revisions in 1613, 1629, 1638, 1644, 1664, 1701, 1744, 1762, 1769, and the last one in 1850 (ten in all)?

 

[Sapper Woody]

Not being KJVO, but having held that view in the past (KJVP now), I can easily answer those questions. We'll start with number 2, since the other two are the exact same question.

The Apocrypha was included NOT AS CANON, but as historical books only. They contain contradictions to the rest of the Bible, and even themselves. It was accepted that these were pseudopigraphical books. They were never placed on the same level as the Bible, and never were considered to be divinely inspired.

Now, as to questions one and three, the KJV has never been (except for perhaps the extreme KJVOists, such as Ruckmanites) claimed to be inspired. Preserved, yes. But not inspired. You'll often hear this phrase: "God's perfect word preserved for the English speaking people", or "God's Word perfectly preserved for the English speaking people." It's not about inspiration, it's about preservation.

The ironic thing, is that you used a quote that had the word "vulgar" in it, with old English usage, to show why we shouldn't use old English.

Another ironic thing is that you are using the "it's harder to understand" argument, when in all actuality, using the Flesch-Kincaid model, the KJV is at a lower grade of readability (6th grade reading level) of reading than almost every single modern translation. In fact, this post of mine is at a higher grade reading level than the KJV. This post is roughly an 8th grade reading level, according to their model.

There are some arguments that are valid, but the ones you presented are not them.

In fact, the "Old English" argument is (imo) actually something the KJVOers have on their side. It's a dead language that does not change in meaning anymore. So the words will always mean the same thing when it's understood that they are old English. Today's English is changing constantly, with words' meanings in constant flux. Did you know that just recently they added "soup sandwhich" and "side boob" to some modern dictionaries?

 

[T Alan]

Not being KJVO, but having held that view in the past (KJVP now), I can easily answer those questions. We'll start with number 2, since the other two are the exact same question.

The Apocrypha was included NOT AS CANON, but as historical books only. They contain contradictions to the rest of the Bible, and even themselves. It was accepted that these were pseudopigraphical books. They were never placed on the same level as the Bible, and never were considered to be divinely inspired.

Now, as to questions one and three, the KJV has never been (except for perhaps the extreme KJVOists, such as Ruckmanites) claimed to be inspired. Preserved, yes. But not inspired. You'll often hear this phrase: "God's perfect word preserved for the English speaking people", or "God's Word perfectly preserved for the English speaking people." It's not about inspiration, it's about preservation.

The ironic thing, is that you used a quote that had the word "vulgar" in it, with old English usage, to show why we shouldn't use old English.

Another ironic thing is that you are using the "it's harder to understand" argument, when in all actuality, using the Flesch-Kincaid model, the KJV is at a lower grade of readability (6th grade reading level) of reading than almost every single modern translation. In fact, this post of mine is at a higher grade reading level than the KJV. This post is roughly an 8th grade reading level, according to their model.

There are some arguments that are valid, but the ones you presented are not them.

In fact, the "Old English" argument is (imo) actually something the KJVOers have on their side. It's a dead language that does not change in meaning anymore. So the words will always mean the same thing when it's understood that they are old English. Today's English is changing constantly, with words' meanings in constant flux. Did you know that just recently they added "soup sandwhich" and "side boob" to some modern dictionaries?

What is this you reference?

 

[Sapper Woody]

What is this you reference?

You mean what is KJVP? It is King James Version Preferred. As in it's what I use and recommend, while recognizing the validity of other translations.

 

[evangelist6589]

Have you seen a unicorn? Have you seen a satyr?

Would you rather use the word "gay clothing?"

Now read those verses in the NIV and see the difference.

Not being KJVO, but having held that view in the past (KJVP now), I can easily answer those questions. We'll start with number 2, since the other two are the exact same question.

The Apocrypha was included NOT AS CANON, but as historical books only. They contain contradictions to the rest of the Bible, and even themselves. It was accepted that these were pseudopigraphical books. They were never placed on the same level as the Bible, and never were considered to be divinely inspired.

Now, as to questions one and three, the KJV has never been (except for perhaps the extreme KJVOists, such as Ruckmanites) claimed to be inspired. Preserved, yes. But not inspired. You'll often hear this phrase: "God's perfect word preserved for the English speaking people", or "God's Word perfectly preserved for the English speaking people." It's not about inspiration, it's about preservation.

The ironic thing, is that you used a quote that had the word "vulgar" in it, with old English usage, to show why we shouldn't use old English.

Another ironic thing is that you are using the "it's harder to understand" argument, when in all actuality, using the Flesch-Kincaid model, the KJV is at a lower grade of readability (6th grade reading level) of reading than almost every single modern translation. In fact, this post of mine is at a higher grade reading level than the KJV. This post is roughly an 8th grade reading level, according to their model.

There are some arguments that are valid, but the ones you presented are not them.

In fact, the "Old English" argument is (imo) actually something the KJVOers have on their side. It's a dead language that does not change in meaning anymore. So the words will always mean the same thing when it's understood that they are old English. Today's English is changing constantly, with words' meanings in constant flux. Did you know that just recently they added "soup sandwhich" and "side boob" to some modern dictionaries?

 

[Don]

Really? The man says he's KJVP, not KJVO; and you jump to "fine clothing" is better than "gay clothing"? When reading the verse in context easily explains what the point of the verse is, and whether you use "gay" or "fine" doesn't change that point in any way whatsoever?

 

[Scarlett O.]

The ironic thing, is that you used a quote that had the word "vulgar" in it, with old English usage, to show why we shouldn't use old English.

E-6589,

SW is right. You used a word in its archaic meaning (twice in a quote and once by you) to discredit using words in their archaic meaning.

 

[annsni]

In fact, the "Old English" argument is (imo) actually something the KJVOers have on their side. It's a dead language that does not change in meaning anymore. So the words will always mean the same thing when it's understood that they are old English. Today's English is changing constantly, with words' meanings in constant flux. Did you know that just recently they added "soup sandwhich" and "side boob" to some modern dictionaries?

Actually, this is the exact reason that a "dead language" is not a good fit as a Bible for modern people. Words DO change meaning and if they do, and we continue to use the old meaning, the Word of God will be misunderstood. "Gay" would be a term we all know has changed meaning drastically from a positive reference to a not-so-positive reference. A word that I know has changed from it's meaning in the KJV is "study" and when we don't know the meaning of the word as it was used originally, we now do not fully comprehend what God is telling us and so changing that word to the word that we use currently to speak of the concept that it is trying to convey, we then are able to "get it".

 

[evangelist6589]

Actually, this is the exact reason that a "dead language" is not a good fit as a Bible for modern people. Words DO change meaning and if they do, and we continue to use the old meaning, the Word of God will be misunderstood. "Gay" would be a term we all know has changed meaning drastically from a positive reference to a not-so-positive reference. A word that I know has changed from it's meaning in the KJV is "study" and when we don't know the meaning of the word as it was used originally, we now do not fully comprehend what God is telling us and so changing that word to the word that we use currently to speak of the concept that it is trying to convey, we then are able to "get it".

This is why its better for people to use the ESV/NIV, NASB, HCSB etc..

 

[Logos1560]

The Apocrypha was included NOT AS CANON, but as historical books only.

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.“

 

[T Alan]

You mean what is KJVP? It is King James Version Preferred. As in it's what I use and recommend, while recognizing the validity of other translations.

Yes, thanks. I'm new to a lot of these abbv's.

 

[Sapper Woody]

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

It is made clear by the fact that it is called "The Apocrypha". That word in and of itself means that it is not canon.

 

[Sapper Woody]

Have you seen a unicorn?

No. But I've never seen a re'em either. Along with a dodo. Never seen one.

Have you seen a satyr?

Yes, I've seen wild goats before.

Would you rather use the word "gay clothing?"

Wow, really? I guess we need to change a bunch of Christmas songs now. And the Flinstones' theme. Don't want to have a "gay old time". This argument is juvenile.

Now read those verses in the NIV and see the difference.

I've read the NIV. Not a fan.

To be clear, I am no longer KJVO, but KJVP. In all honesty, my stance on the issue has never changed. But I used to call myself KJVO because it was the "only" Bible I use. It's the one I recommend. I never held to anything such as one having to use the KJV to get saved, or having to use the KJV to be right with God. But the definition of KJVO shifted towards those things, and so while I didn't change my stance, I changed my moniker.

Some out there disagree with me that the KJV is the best translation. And to them I will say that it's definitely the best translation for me. If someone uses a different version, that's fine with me. Use what will get you closer to God. (And that is what separates me from the KJVO camp.) I've even (gasp) preached out of other versions when my audience used other versions.

 

[Logos1560]

Another ironic thing is that you are using the "it's harder to understand" argument, when in all actuality, using the Flesch-Kincaid model, the KJV is at a lower grade of readability (6th grade reading level) of reading than almost every single modern translation. In fact, this post of mine is at a higher grade reading level than the KJV. This post is roughly an 8th grade reading level, according to their model.

Has it been demonstrated that the Flesch-Kincaid test with its reliance on number of syllables per word is an accurate test for readability and being understandable? Being supposedly more readable could be different than being more understandable.

KJV-only author R. B. Ouellette claimed that it is a false statement to say that the KJV “is harder to read and understand” (A More Sure Word, p. 150). As support for his claim, Ouellette asserted that the KJV “has a significantly lower average syllable count” (Ibid.). KJV-only author Gail Riplinger also maintained that “the KJV averages less syllables per word” (Language, p. 159). Riplinger claimed that the KJV’s average was 1.310 syllables per word and that the NKJV’s average was 1.313 syllables per word (p. 160). Is that a significant difference?

Furthermore, there may be some reasons why the KJV may have a lower average syllable count that have no bearing on whether or not it is supposedly easier to read and understand. For example, in most editions of the KJV there are several commonly used words that are divided into two or more words where the exact same word united as one word in another translation may count as a longer, multi-syllable word. Some examples include “to day,” “to morrow,” “for ever,” “for evermore,” “son in law,” “mother in law,” “daughter in law,” “strong holds,“ “way side,” “good will,” “any more,“ “any thing,“ “mean while,” “mean time,“ “sea side,“ “sea shore,“ and “cart wheel.” There are also other such words. A few words may be united in the KJV that are divided into two words in another translation. Overall, because those words divided in the KJV are more commonly used words, they would contribute to giving the KJV a lower average syllable count. Those words do not actually make the KJV easier to read and understand. By the way, some KJV editions would unite some of those words such as “to day” to either “to-day” or “today” so that those KJV editions would have a different average syllable count. The 1611 KJV edition had “shall be” united as one, longer word “shalbe,” and it would likely have a different average syllable count.

More importantly, the KJV has a number of archaic words or words used with archaic meanings that may be shorter or have fewer syllables than their present equivalents. Some examples could include “turtle” for “turtledove,” “vale“ for “valley,” “dearth“ for “famine,” “trump“ for “trumpet,” “tongue“ for “language,” “even“ for “evening,” “let” for “hinder,” “anon” for “immediately,” “oft“ for “often,” “sod” for “boiled,” “mete“ for “measure,” “dure“ for “endure,” “quick“ for “living“ or “alive,” “mean“ for “common,” “still” for “continually,” “attent“ for “attentive,” “by and by” for “immediately,” “ere“ for “before,” “minish” for “diminish,” “fine” for “refine,” “astonied” for “astonished,“ and “rid” for “deliver.” While such words may help reduce the KJV’s average syllable count, they do not actually make it easier to read and understand. These reasons or factors indicate why claims concerning “average syllable count” may be misleading and misused

 

[Sapper Woody]

Has it been demonstrated that the Flesch-Kincaid test with its reliance on number of syllables per word is an accurate test for readability and being understandable? Being supposedly more readable could be different than being more understandable.

KJV-only author R. B. Ouellette claimed that it is a false statement to say that the KJV “is harder to read and understand” (A More Sure Word, p. 150). As support for his claim, Ouellette asserted that the KJV “has a significantly lower average syllable count” (Ibid.). KJV-only author Gail Riplinger also maintained that “the KJV averages less syllables per word” (Language, p. 159). Riplinger claimed that the KJV’s average was 1.310 syllables per word and that the NKJV’s average was 1.313 syllables per word (p. 160). Is that a significant difference?

Furthermore, there may be some reasons why the KJV may have a lower average syllable count that have no bearing on whether or not it is supposedly easier to read and understand. For example, in most editions of the KJV there are several commonly used words that are divided into two or more words where the exact same word united as one word in another translation may count as a longer, multi-syllable word. Some examples include “to day,” “to morrow,” “for ever,” “for evermore,” “son in law,” “mother in law,” “daughter in law,” “strong holds,“ “way side,” “good will,” “any more,“ “any thing,“ “mean while,” “mean time,“ “sea side,“ “sea shore,“ and “cart wheel.” There are also other such words. A few words may be united in the KJV that are divided into two words in another translation. Overall, because those words divided in the KJV are more commonly used words, they would contribute to giving the KJV a lower average syllable count. Those words do not actually make the KJV easier to read and understand. By the way, some KJV editions would unite some of those words such as “to day” to either “to-day” or “today” so that those KJV editions would have a different average syllable count. The 1611 KJV edition had “shall be” united as one, longer word “shalbe,” and it would likely have a different average syllable count.

More importantly, the KJV has a number of archaic words or words used with archaic meanings that may be shorter or have fewer syllables than their present equivalents. Some examples could include “turtle” for “turtledove,” “vale“ for “valley,” “dearth“ for “famine,” “trump“ for “trumpet,” “tongue“ for “language,” “even“ for “evening,” “let” for “hinder,” “anon” for “immediately,” “oft“ for “often,” “sod” for “boiled,” “mete“ for “measure,” “dure“ for “endure,” “quick“ for “living“ or “alive,” “mean“ for “common,” “still” for “continually,” “attent“ for “attentive,” “by and by” for “immediately,” “ere“ for “before,” “minish” for “diminish,” “fine” for “refine,” “astonied” for “astonished,“ and “rid” for “deliver.” While such words may help reduce the KJV’s average syllable count, they do not actually make it easier to read and understand. These reasons or factors indicate why claims concerning “average syllable count” may be misleading and misused

You make good points, and I'll hand that argument right over to you. I'll admit that readability and understandability are two different things. But I also know that as a 4th grader, when I first read through the Bible, I used a KJV and understood it fine. Obviously, the nuances and symbolism were lost on me. But as far as knowing the words, and following the themes, I had no problem.

 

[Yeshua1]

You make good points, and I'll hand that argument right over to you. I'll admit that readability and understandability are two different things. But I also know that as a 4th grader, when I first read through the Bible, I used a KJV and understood it fine. Obviously, the nuances and symbolism were lost on me. But as far as knowing the words, and following the themes, I had no problem.

The KJV would be understand by those who werer raised early on to read and use it, but the sad theuth is that due to the woeful lack of public education in this nation past generations, it is hard for those with inferior reading skills to even use a version like the Niv or Hcsb for profit, much less the Kjv/Nas!

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

Actually, this is the exact reason that a "dead language" is not a good fit as a Bible for modern people. Words DO change meaning and if they do, and we continue to use the old meaning, the Word of God will be misunderstood. "Gay" would be a term we all know has changed meaning drastically from a positive reference to a not-so-positive reference. A word that I know has changed from it's meaning in the KJV is "study" and when we don't know the meaning of the word as it was used originally, we now do not fully comprehend what God is telling us and so changing that word to the word that we use currently to speak of the concept that it is trying to convey, we then are able to "get it".

anyone with a desire to truly know what God said can figure it out with looking at the context and a little study.

You have to look at context and study to do that even when the words aren't archaic and uncommon.

this point is not valid.

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

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.“

perhaps you could explain why those books were placed in a separate section all on it's own?

 

[annsni]

anyone with a desire to truly know what God said can figure it out with looking at the context and a little study.

You have to look at context and study to do that even when the words aren't archaic and uncommon.

this point is not valid.

It actually is. Why can't it say what it means to say? When the KJV was written, was it written to the people who would be reading it? The translators said that it was important for the Bible to be accessible to the people reading it. We have a number of adults in our congregation who's reading level is quite low and who actually have problems reading. For some, I've gotten them an audio Bible but for all, the KJV is beyond their understanding. Even studying and working with them, they just cannot comprehend it. What do I do with that? Tell them too bad?

Study of the Word is important but when I study what the word "study" means today, it's going to be totally different than the meaning of the word that caused the translators to use that word in the KJV. So why cripple someone right at the start and make them misunderstand the Word? That would be a stumbling block for many.

 

[annsni]

I believe the KJV translators did not want to put the apocrypha in the Bible but they were told to - but I could be mis-remembering. I'd have to look it up again.