• 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!

What's the AUTHORITY for "King-James-Version-Only"?

Status
Not open for further replies.
robycop3

robycop3

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Well, so far, no KJVO has been able to show us anything from GOD supporting the KJVO myth.
 
R

rlvaughn

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Salty said:
The KJV accounts for 31% of sales - not exactly a majority

and IMHO - as time goes on the KJV % will continue to decrease.
Click to expand...
Salty, unless I am missing something, this is about "reading" rather than "sales". If this is accurate it is down quite a bit from the 2014 "The Bible in American Life" by the Center for the Study of Religion and American Culture at Indiana University (55 percent).
The graph presents data on the popularity of the versions of the Bible read in the United States as of January 2017.
Click to expand...

Rippon said:
I think some folks are stashing half a dozen or more KJVs in their drawers.
Click to expand...
Yes, I'd say that sales doesn't provide exactly what we need to know as far as "popularity" or reading is concerned. I have bought any number of Bible versions (even some I don't like) for various reasons, none of which I read on a regular basis (the one I do read regularly is KJV, though).
 
John of Japan

John of Japan

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
loDebar said:
The translators were not trained in Koine Greek but Classical Greek. Koine was not fully understood until the 1800's when ancient papyri were discovered. Translators had to rely on Greek NT from other Bibles.
Click to expand...
This is somewhat accurate. However, the translators did recognize that koine Greek was a different variety from classical. As I recall, they considered it a variety of the Attic dialect.

As for the papyri, those discoveries were made in the early 20th rather than the 19th century. The main changes because of the papyri discoveries were semantic, not syntactical. In other words, we learned more accurate meanings from the papyri, but not little more about koine grammar. Also, it is true that many considered the koine to be some "holy language" just for the NT until the discovery of the papyri.
It ignored Hebrew for the OT used concurrently by the Rabbis and relied on the Greek Septuagint, even German and Dutch Bibles.
Click to expand...
I truly do not believe that the KJV translators ignored Hebrew for the LXX. I often read from the LXX (carry it to our college chapel), and there are many, many differences from the KJV, which is thus much closer to the Hebrew than the LXX is.
 
Y

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
John of Japan said:
This is somewhat accurate. However, the translators did recognize that koine Greek was a different variety from classical. As I recall, they considered it a variety of the Attic dialect.

As for the papyri, those discoveries were made in the early 20th rather than the 19th century. The main changes because of the papyri discoveries were semantic, not syntactical. In other words, we learned more accurate meanings from the papyri, but not little more about koine grammar. Also, it is true that many considered the koine to be some "holy language" just for the NT until the discovery of the papyri.
I truly do not believe that the KJV translators ignored Hebrew for the LXX. I often read from the LXX (carry it to our college chapel), and there are many, many differences from the KJV, which is thus much closer to the Hebrew than the LXX is.
Click to expand...
They did the best that could have been done at the time, save for those instances where would have preferred to not have King James influence some of their chosen renderings.
 
Reynolds

Reynolds

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
robycop3 said:
We left off in a previous thread with "One Baptism's" failure to answer the very-pertinent question, "BY WHAT AUTHORITY do you believe the KJVO myth?" The answer to this question is VERY important to the veracity of KJVO, as no doctrine of faith/worship not found in Scripture can be true. And we know the MAN-MADE origin of KJVO.

We're not talking about PREFERENCES. Every one of us has preferences and fave Bible versions among the many available. We're talking about the belief that the KJV is the ONLY valid English Bible translation. That belief is taught as a doctrine in many circles, while many of us, including I, believe it's false.

Perhaps some of you other KJVOs can help the gentleman out. After all, that same standard applies to you as well.

Without any AUTHORITY for the KJVO doctrine, we can only conclude it's FALSE, and should not be believed by any Christian. So, let's see the AUTHORITY for KJVO or an admission that it's false and you believers of it have been deceived.
Click to expand...
Tradition of men. Had the KJV only crowd had a NASB put in their hands at infancy they would probably be NASB only.
 
R

Rippon

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Yeshua1 said:
How so, as the more formal versions are more into the original intended meaning, not trying to interprete [sic]
what was said!
Click to expand...
You are free to disagree with scholars such as Mounce, Fee, Strauss, Silva, Carson, Decker and others.

You are still deceived into thinking that your favorites do not interpret.
 
utilyan

utilyan

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
robycop3 said:
Everyone has preferences, but not all doctrines of faith & worship have any AUTHORITY to make them valid. We know the KJVO myth isn't found in the KJV itself, so it's very appropriate to ask where/what the authority for KJVO is.
BY WHAT AUTHORITY does one declare the KJV to be the ONLY valid English Bible translation???????????????????????????????????
Click to expand...

"BY WHAT AUTHORITY does one declare the KJV to be the ONLY valid English Bible translation?"

By the same authority that declares a Chinese bible to be the only valid English bible translation.

You will always need a tradition and church to hand the book to you.
 
Y

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Rippon said:
You are free to disagree with scholars such as Mounce, Fee, Strauss, Silva, Carson, Decker and others.

You are still deceived into thinking that your favorites do not interpret.
Click to expand...
All do, but formal much less!
 
John of Japan

John of Japan

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
utilyan said:
"BY WHAT AUTHORITY does one declare the KJV to be the ONLY valid English Bible translation?"

By the same authority that declares a Chinese bible to be the only valid English bible translation.

You will always need a tradition and church to hand the book to you.
Click to expand...
Actually, there is a similar attitude to the KJVO position in China by many towards the Chinese Union Version (和合本), of 1919 and in Japan, towards the Classical Bible (文語訳) of 1917. Interestingly enough, these Bibles were both translated from critical texts, not the TR.

In history, you also have Septuagint-Only movement, an Old Latin Only movement, and then a Latin Vulgate Only movement. Ironically, Augustine wrote Jerome urging him not to re-translate his Vulgate from the Hebrew because the LXX was already perfect! Turretin (1623-1687) argued against perfect translations in opposition to the Catholic teaching that the Vulgate was perfect.
 
thatbrian

thatbrian

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
KJVO is strange fire.

"Now Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, each took his censer and put fire in it and laid incense on it and offered unauthorized fire before the LORD, which he had not commanded them." - Lev 10:1 ESV
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top