Why has the KJV been so popular?

[Logos1560]

If you believed in God's providence you would see a connection between the readily available KJV over a 400 yr time frame, and the not so readily manuscripts until recently.

In God's providence, the Bible had been translated into English many years before 1611.

Was it God's providence that the KJV was translated from textually-varying sources and revised from textually-varying translations?

Was it in God's providence that the makers of the KJV borrowed a good number of renderings from the 1582 Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament?

How readily available was the KJV for a number of years when only a few printers (king's printer in London, Cambridge starting in 1629, later king's printer in Edinburgh, and later Oxford) were permitted to publish it?

Was it God's providence that one king or queen's printer in Edinburgh printed some KJV editions that were full of printing errors and were practically unreadable?

There were some differences between the varying KJV editions printed in the 1600's and the varying KJV editions printed in the 1700's.

 

[1689Dave]

In God's providence, the Bible had been translated into English many years before 1611.

Was it God's providence that the KJV was translated from textually-varying sources and revised from textually-varying translations?

Was it in God's providence that the makers of the KJV borrowed a good number of renderings from the 1582 Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament?

How readily available was the KJV for a number of years when only a few printers (king's printer in London, Cambridge starting in 1629, later king's printer in Edinburgh, and later Oxford) were permitted to publish it?

Was it God's providence that one king or queen's printer in Edinburgh printed some KJV editions that were full of printing errors and were practically unreadable?

There were some differences between the varying KJV editions printed in the 1600's and the varying KJV editions printed in the 1700's.

Do you think God failed in creating the world just as he would have it? Things got away from him and he settles for the best he can get? If so, I can understand your reasoning.

 

[Salty]

1) Back in post 20 - Tom made some excellent points about why the KJV has been so popular for over 400 years. About the only thing that I could add to that many preachers have made KJO virtually a doctrine - and those in his congregation have blindly followed - and they can only state -"I have been taught to believe....- but they themselves cannot give a solid reason for the KJO.

2) THIS POST IS NOT about the personal life of King James. Any future mention of that WILL be deleted. If you desire to explore that side of the King - you are free to start a new and separate thread.

 

[Logos1560]

Do you think God failed in creating the world just as he would have it? Things got away from him and he settles for the best he can get? If so, I can understand your reasoning.

Do some claims for the KJV suggest that God failed in His involvement in the translating of the Scriptures into English before 1611?

Do some seem to invoke inconsistently the name of God concerning the KJV while they may not show that they apply their reasoning consistently and justly?

I in no way suggested that God settles for the best He can get, and it has not been demonstrated that the KJV has the best rendering for every original-language word that He can get.

 

[1689Dave]

Do some claims for the KJV suggest that God failed in His involvement in the translating of the Scriptures into English before 1611?

Do some seem to invoke inconsistently the name of God concerning the KJV while they may not show that they apply their reasoning consistently and justly?

I in no way suggested that God settles for the best He can get, and it has not been demonstrated that the KJV has the best rendering for every original-language word that He can get.

All I'm saying is that God providentially made the KJV the popular translation for over 400 years.

 

[Salty]

All I'm saying is that God providentially made the KJV the popular translation for over 400 years.

How did God make it popular? Unless there was no free will involved?

I noticed that one thing that has not been up is "it loses something in the translation"

 

[1689Dave]

How did God make it popular? Unless there was no free will involved?

Few other choices?

 

[tyndale1946]

I think mainly because it was the most readily available translation until very recently. Its what everyone grew up using.

1) Back in post 20 - Tom made some excellent points about why the KJV has been so popular for over 400 years. About the only thing that I could add to that many preachers have made KJO virtually a doctrine - and those in his congregation have blindly followed - and they can only state -"I have been taught to believe....- but they themselves cannot give a solid reason for the KJO.

2) THIS POST IS NOT about the personal life of King James. Any future mention of that WILL be deleted. If you desire to explore that side of the King - you are free to start a new and separate thread.

Does a church have the right to use the KJV as its only rule of faith and practice?... I grew up with the KJV... Everyone brought their own to church... It graced the pulpit and preachers, preached from it... Even though me, my Daddy, Granddaddy, Great Granddaddy and on used it, they were not KJVO in the sense that it has been used on here... If a church or body of believers wants to follow the KJV, which they believe IS their Word Of God shouldn't they be free to as long as they do not infringe on the belief of others?... You come to my church you WILL hear the KJV preached... I come to yours I may hear a different translation... Reynolds said tradition... Has it been a bad tradition?... It is interesting to me that the Old Theologians quoted and commented from the KJV... I do not believe they used anything else... I've told brethren on here time and time again I personally don't care what translation you read and study from and preach from but I WILL use my KJV... I will not look down on you or belittle you because you don't... I have a brother of my belief on here and you all probably know who he is, and we get along fine... Btw he uses the YLT... That's OK with me!... Brother Glen

 

[Logos1560]

All I'm saying is that God providentially made the KJV the popular translation for over 400 years.

Did God directly make the KJV the most popular translation?

Did the opinions and traditions of English-speaking people make it the most popular?

The actual varying editions of the KJV printed in the 1600's had some differences with the varying editions of the KJV printed in the 1700's. The varying editions of the KJV printed in the 1700's had some differences with the varying editions of the KJV printed in the 1800's. The same exact edition or revision has not been used for over 400 years.

Can God's approval or blessing be claimed for every thing that God permits to happen?

Is subjective popularity the measure or standard of what God approves?

 

[church mouse guy]

A lot of the KJV is Tyndale.

 

[1689Dave]

Did God directly make the KJV the most popular translation?

Did the opinions and traditions of English-speaking people make it the most popular?

The actual varying editions of the KJV printed in the 1600's had some differences with the varying editions of the KJV printed in the 1700's. The varying editions of the KJV printed in the 1700's had some differences with the varying editions of the KJV printed in the 1800's. The same exact edition or revision has not been used for over 400 years.

Can God's approval or blessing be claimed for every thing that God permits to happen?

Is subjective popularity the measure or standard of what God approves?

Do you think things escaped God's control, and he took what he could get?

 

[church mouse guy]

As Ken Connelly, a professor and an associate of Billy Graham, said, getting the Bible into English meant that every page was soaked in blood and the letters ought to be printed in gold.

He tells the Story of the King James Bible in this excellent video done in connection with Alexander Scourby, the greatest reader of the King James Bible:

 

[Logos1560]

Do you think things escaped God's control, and he took what he could get?

I do not blame God for the mistakes and errors of men. I would not suggest that the translating of the Scriptures into English many years before 1611 escaped God's control. Do the Scriptures teach that any one exclusive group of Bible translators would be made infallible, perfect interpreters who could make no mistakes in their translating?
God was just as faithful and true in His involvement in English Bible translating before 1611 as in 1611 and as after 1611.

Do you think that the error in seventeen of the earliest editions of the KJV printed in London [1611, 1613, 1614, 1616, 1617, 1626, 1630, 1631, 1633, 1634, 1640, 1644, 1650, 1652, 1655, 1657, 1698 London], which have the name of the wrong king ["Jehoiachin"] at 2 Kings 24:19 and which was kept uncorrected from the 1602 edition of the Bishops' Bible by the makers of the KJV, escaped God's control?

Do you think the error Zithri at Exodus 6:21 introduced in the 1769 Oxford edition of the KJV and left uncorrected for over 100 years in most Oxford and Cambridge editions of the KJV escaped God's control?

 

[1689Dave]

I do not blame God for the mistakes and errors of men. I would not suggest that the translating of the Scriptures into English many years before 1611 escaped God's control. Do the Scriptures teach that any one exclusive group of Bible translators would be made infallible, perfect interpreters who could make no mistakes in their translating?
God was just as faithful and true in His involvement in English Bible translating before 1611 as in 1611 and as after 1611.

Do you think that the error in seventeen of the earliest editions of the KJV printed in London [1611, 1613, 1614, 1616, 1617, 1626, 1630, 1631, 1633, 1634, 1640, 1644, 1650, 1652, 1655, 1657, 1698 London], which have the name of the wrong king ["Jehoiachin"] at 2 Kings 24:19 and which was kept uncorrected from the 1602 edition of the Bishops' Bible by the makers of the KJV, escaped God's control?

Do you think the error Zithri at Exodus 6:21 introduced in the 1769 Oxford edition of the KJV and left uncorrected for over 100 years in most Oxford and Cambridge editions of the KJV escaped God's control?

It comes down to your view of God's sovereignty. If he is subject to failure and things get away from him every so often, then your view might hold up. The problem is, some people look at history and see the minute defects. Others look through history and see God.

 

[Logos1560]

Was it God's providence that one king or queen's printer in Edinburgh printed some KJV editions that were full of printing errors and were practically unreadable?

One royal printer in Scotland who obtained the patent or rights from Charles II to print the KJV was Andro or Andrew Anderson. John Eadie noted that “Anderson and his widow after him were patentees for many years--from 1671-1712” (English Bible, II, p. 317). Christopher Anderson wrote: “Bibles the most illegible and incorrect that ever were printed in the world came from this press; the patentee persecuted all the other printers in Scotland, and at last went so far as to seize a number of Bibles brought from London by the booksellers” (Annals, II, p. 561). John Eadie asserted: “Her Bibles swarmed with deplorable blunders, and the gross carelessness of the printing was fostered by the want [lack] of all competition” (English Bible, II, p. 318). Robert Chambers claimed: “Fac-similes of a few pages from her Bibles--in poor blurred type, almost unintelligible with errors, with italic letters employed wherever the Roman font fell short, and some lines wholly without spaces between the words--would appall the reader” (Domestic Annals of Scotland, p. 364). Concerning Anderson and his widow as royal printer, Hugo Arnot wrote: “Nothing came from the royal press, but the most illegible and uncorrect Bibles and books, that ever were printed in any one place in the world” (History of Edinburgh, p. 435).

In the 1859 Report from the Select Committee on the Queen Printers’ Patent, Robert Besley asserted: “If I choose to print an inaccurate edition, the patent does not meddle with me” (p. 20).

 

[1689Dave]

One royal printer in Scotland who obtained the patent or rights from Charles II to print the KJV was Andro or Andrew Anderson. John Eadie noted that “Anderson and his widow after him were patentees for many years--from 1671-1712” (English Bible, II, p. 317). Christopher Anderson wrote: “Bibles the most illegible and incorrect that ever were printed in the world came from this press; the patentee persecuted all the other printers in Scotland, and at last went so far as to seize a number of Bibles brought from London by the booksellers” (Annals, II, p. 561). John Eadie asserted: “Her Bibles swarmed with deplorable blunders, and the gross carelessness of the printing was fostered by the want [lack] of all competition” (English Bible, II, p. 318). Robert Chambers claimed: “Fac-similes of a few pages from her Bibles--in poor blurred type, almost unintelligible with errors, with italic letters employed wherever the Roman font fell short, and some lines wholly without spaces between the words--would appall the reader” (Domestic Annals of Scotland, p. 364). Concerning Anderson and his widow as royal printer, Hugo Arnot wrote: “Nothing came from the royal press, but the most illegible and uncorrect Bibles and books, that ever were printed in any one place in the world” (History of Edinburgh, p. 435).

In the 1859 Report from the Select Committee on the Queen Printers’ Patent, Robert Besley asserted: “If I choose to print an inaccurate edition, the patent does not meddle with me” (p. 20).

Are you trying to straw man the KJV as being an "inspired" translation, and then boldly and skilfully proving it not to be?

 

[Logos1560]

It comes down to your view of God's sovereignty. If he is subject to failure and things get away from him every so often, then your view might hold up. The problem is, some people look at history and see the minute defects. Others look through history and see God.

I do not suggest that God was subject to failure as you improperly try to allege.

God in His sovereignty can use men that are imperfect, and He can use Bible translations that have imperfections.

God's sovereignty can allow men to reap the consequences of what they sow whether good or bad.

Some may try to appeal to God to try to justify their own imperfect, faulty human reasoning.

It has not been demonstrated from the Scriptures that God was anymore involved in the making of the KJV than He was in the making of the pre-1611 English Bibles or than He was in the making of post-1611 English Bibles.

 

[1689Dave]

I do not suggest that God was subject to failure as you improperly try to allege.

God in His sovereignty can use men that are imperfect, and He can use Bible translations that have imperfections.

God's sovereignty can allow men to reap the consequences of what they sow whether good or bad.

Some may try to appeal to God to try to justify their own imperfect, faulty human reasoning.

It has not been demonstrated from the Scriptures that God was anymore involved in the making of the KJV than He was in the making of the pre-1611 English Bibles or than He was in the making of post-1611 English Bibles.

It comes down to your view of God. It took Israel 40 years to make an 11 day journey through the wilderness. Did God fumble the ball on this like you suggest he did with the KJV? Or does it all fit part of a bigger plan?

 

[church mouse guy]

I do not suggest that God was subject to failure as you improperly try to allege.

God in His sovereignty can use men that are imperfect, and He can use Bible translations that have imperfections.

God's sovereignty can allow men to reap the consequences of what they sow whether good or bad.

Some may try to appeal to God to try to justify their own imperfect, faulty human reasoning.

It has not been demonstrated from the Scriptures that God was anymore involved in the making of the KJV than He was in the making of the pre-1611 English Bibles or than He was in the making of post-1611 English Bibles.

That's not true. Tyndale prayed at his death that the eyes of the King of England might be opened. Watch this video if you have a half hour:

 

[Logos1560]

Are you trying to straw man the KJV as being an "inspired" translation, and then boldly and skilfully proving it not to be?

I read and accept the KJV as what it actually is. I have read it over 50 years.

You fail to demonstrate that I made any straw-man argument. I answered your posts with questions based on a consistent, just application of your own questions and statements.