Originally posted by timothy 1769:
It wasn't just popular, John. There effectively was no other English bible for hundreds of years.
First of all, King James, though indebted to Tyndale and the Geneva Reformers, so wished for the KJV to prevail that he made ownership of a Geneva Bible a felony! Thus, the Geneva Bible gradually gave way in its widespread popularity to the King James Version during James’ and his son’s (Charles I) reigns. However, smuggled copies of the Geneva and Tyndale bibles were not uncommon. (If the RCC had made a translation popular by edict instead of choice, would KJVO's be supporting that? Not likely).
The Separatists that boarded the Mayflower for “the New World” carried the Geneva Bible as their most treasured possession. Countless others of Puritan and Presbyterian (and other Reformed) theologies, and even some Anglicans, followed this practice when sailing for America, leaving behind other items, if necessary, to make room for copies of the Geneva Bible. The "only English translation for hundreds of years" claim is wrong.
Meanwhile, in England at least, the KJV enjoyed being the monopoly for about 250 years (1630’s until the late 1800s), until it was threatened by the publication of the RSV. With other publications that followed, the KJV remained most popular (followed by the RSV), but lost its "majority" standing. The "majority for over three centuries" claim by KJVO's is simply wrong. Since the advent of the NIV, the KJV has lost its standing as not only majority, but also most popluar.
I agree there is no biblically required time period. That's my opinion. But answer me this: Is there any biblical requirement to accept the current canon?
No, there's not. Which is why I don't throw stones at my brethren who adopt the apocryphaas canon. However, I personally do not use them. I might add, though, that your question supports my caveats that I occaisionally throw out whenever an NT verse regarding "scripture" is used. I've maintained that, when Paul referrs to "scripture" in his writings, that he is referring to the OT, not the NT, as the NT has not been completed, and in many cases, not even been written, let alone, added to the canon.
