King James Only Movement

Status
Not open for further replies.

Stomata leontôn

Puritan Board Sophomore
I see what you are saying, but what I am saying is that I read the word "you" to be singular in both versions. I would not have known it was plural in the KJV unless I had had notes for it. So if my ESV notes explain that to me, I would get the accurate meaning whereas I would not have with the KJV.
Methinks our high school English teachers should be shaken and stirred.

Of course as you say, maybe modernist versions could be improved if they just used y'all.
 

Stomata leontôn

Puritan Board Sophomore
TELLING QUOTATIONS FROM WESTCOTT AND HORT
Concerning the Deity of Christ:
"He never speaks of Himself directly as God, but the aim of His revelation was to lead men to see God in Him." (Westcott, The Gospel According to St. John, p. 297).

"(John) does not expressly affirm the identification of the Word with Jesus Christ." (Westcott, Ibid., p. 16).
Concerning the Scriptures:
"I reject the infallibility of Holy Scriptures overwhelmingly." (Westcott, The Life and Letters of Brook Foss Westcott, Vol. I, p.207).

"Our Bible as well as our Faith is a mere compromise." (Westcott, On the Canon of the New Testament, p. vii).

...

This is the consistent pattern in the Alexandrian texts favored by Metzger, et al.: they demote the divinity of Christ. Considering Alexandria at the time was the source of the Arian heresy, one can conclude that this text was the Arian bible.​
 

LawrenceU

Puritan Board Doctor
I see what you are saying, but what I am saying is that I read the word "you" to be singular in both versions. I would not have known it was plural in the KJV unless I had had notes for it. So if my ESV notes explain that to me, I would get the accurate meaning whereas I would not have with the KJV.
Methinks our high school English teachers should be shaken and stirred.

Of course as you say, maybe modernist versions could be improved if they just used y'all.

Actually, my first year Greek professor recommended this approach to us. Y'all works well! And, it is my vernacular.
 

Pilgrim

Puritanboard Commissioner
I see what you are saying, but what I am saying is that I read the word "you" to be singular in both versions. I would not have known it was plural in the KJV unless I had had notes for it. So if my ESV notes explain that to me, I would get the accurate meaning whereas I would not have with the KJV.
Methinks our high school English teachers should be shaken and stirred.

Of course as you say, maybe modernist versions could be improved if they just used y'all.

Actually, my first year Greek professor recommended this approach to us. Y'all works well! And, it is my vernacular.

I was joking about this with a PCA pastor friend of mine a while back. Y'all, we just need to produce the Redneck Standard Version and it will solve all of the second person plural problems. I mean, nobody outside of Dixie reads the Bible anyway, right? :lol:
 

JohnGill

Puritan Board Senior
Methinks our high school English teachers should be shaken and stirred.

Of course as you say, maybe modernist versions could be improved if they just used y'all.

Actually, my first year Greek professor recommended this approach to us. Y'all works well! And, it is my vernacular.

I was joking about this with a PCA pastor friend of mine a while back. Y'all, we just need to produce the Redneck Standard Version and it will solve all of the second person plural problems. I mean, nobody outside of Dixie reads the Bible anyway, right? :lol:

I take great offense at that statement. How dare you demean the most awesomest translation in existence! The Texas Bible!

Which of course properly translates the Hebrew for manna as hominy grits. And them tweren't leeks, they is collard greens.
 

PointyHaired Calvinist

Puritan Board Sophomore
Two Issues:

"Faithful" KJV Updates

Have any KJV supporters used or looked into the updates from KJV supporters? (Let me make clear I don't think a KJV Supporter is a KJV Onlyist).

1) King James 21 or Third Millennium Bible - this one updates a lot, but not the Thees/Thous. I kinda like this one, though I don't have one in text.

2) Jay Green's editions - He's done several updates and writes against the CT

3) World English Bible - This is based on the Majority text

Am I the only modern Bible user who finds the thees and thous the least troublesome part of the AV? I'm more interested in updating "Fetch a compass" and "Easter".

Textual Issues:

1 Timothy - I always thought "Great is the mystery of godliness, who was manifest in the flesh" that the "Who" means the "mystery of godliness". (I've heard this explanation, but I do lean toward "God was manifest in the flesh" as the original.")

John 1.18 - "the Only God" vs "the only Son" - I've been convinced that monoyenis means "unique" rather than "only begotten", which argues better in this passage for both the deity of Christ and the plurality of the godhead.

Personal note:

I've never seen KJV supporters being so reasonable and charitable. I'm used to the DA Waite and Jack Hyles types. Glad to have you guys in the Reformed Church - let the Indy-Fundies have those guys!
 

Pilgrim

Puritanboard Commissioner
If I'm not mistaken, Theodore Letis endorsed the KJ21.

The World English Bible is a somewhat curious production as they take the ASV (1901) as their starting point and then apparently try to edit it to conform with the Majority Text. If I recall correctly this was done due to the ASV's literalness as well as it being in the public domain. I wonder, why not start with the KJV, which is so much closer as far as the textual basis?
 

Pilgrim

Puritanboard Commissioner
Actually, my first year Greek professor recommended this approach to us. Y'all works well! And, it is my vernacular.

I was joking about this with a PCA pastor friend of mine a while back. Y'all, we just need to produce the Redneck Standard Version and it will solve all of the second person plural problems. I mean, nobody outside of Dixie reads the Bible anyway, right? :lol:

I take great offense at that statement. How dare you demean the most awesomest translation in existence! The Texas Bible!

Which of course properly translates the Hebrew for manna as hominy grits. And them tweren't leeks, they is collard greens.

Texas has no monopoly on hominy grits or collard greens.
 

Grace Alone

Puritan Board Senior
I was joking about this with a PCA pastor friend of mine a while back. Y'all, we just need to produce the Redneck Standard Version and it will solve all of the second person plural problems. I mean, nobody outside of Dixie reads the Bible anyway, right? :lol:

I take great offense at that statement. How dare you demean the most awesomest translation in existence! The Texas Bible!

Which of course properly translates the Hebrew for manna as hominy grits. And them tweren't leeks, they is collard greens.

Texas has no monopoly on hominy grits or collard greens.

Ditto! The Carolinas were founded long before Texas. :lol:
 

MW

Puritanboard Amanuensis
I don't think any reasonable person would object on principle to updating the language of the AV. But it should be done decently and in order, by a council of godly scholars who are men of our profession and who represent a unified reformed church.

Technically, "y'all" is not second person plural. "Thou" is singular and "you" is plural, but "you" is not necessarily all-inclusive. See the words of institution of the Lord's supper for the clear difference: "drink ye all of it."
 

Grace Alone

Puritan Board Senior
You'd only use y'all for "you all" or "all of you" (or "you" plural) in the new ESV (English Southern Version).

Rev. Winzer, do you know why they didn't make the NKJV an update of the original KJV manuscripts?
 

SolaGratia

Puritan Board Junior
Rev. Matthew Winzer in behalf of the English speaking people, I nominate you to start updating the language of the A.V.

We expect for you and, who ever else you pick to help you, to finish by 2011 in time for the 400th anniversary of the A.V.

Thank You,


May Almighty God continued to blessed the English speaking Bible believing people of the only authorized English translation that of the A.V./KJV Bible.

Does anyone else have anyone in mind who is a "godly scholars who are men of our profession and who represent a unified reformed church."

Can Baptist participate?

Even though they already have the NKJV, the NASB, most of the NIV, and half of the ESV for themselves, since the Baptist were the ones who did most of the job translating these different english versions.
 

JohnGill

Puritan Board Senior
"Faithful" KJV Updates

Have any KJV supporters used or looked into the updates from KJV supporters? (Let me make clear I don't think a KJV Supporter is a KJV Onlyist).

1) King James 21 or Third Millennium Bible - this one updates a lot, but not the Thees/Thous. I kinda like this one, though I don't have one in text.

2) Jay Green's editions - He's done several updates and writes against the CT

3) World English Bible - This is based on the Majority text

Am I the only modern Bible user who finds the thees and thous the least troublesome part of the AV? I'm more interested in updating "Fetch a compass" and "Easter".

Textual Issues:

1 Timothy - I always thought "Great is the mystery of godliness, who was manifest in the flesh" that the "Who" means the "mystery of godliness". (I've heard this explanation, but I do lean toward "God was manifest in the flesh" as the original.")

John 1.18 - "the Only God" vs "the only Son" - I've been convinced that monoyenis means "unique" rather than "only begotten", which argues better in this passage for both the deity of Christ and the plurality of the godhead.

Personal note:

I've never seen KJV supporters being so reasonable and charitable. I'm used to the DA Waite and Jack Hyles types. Glad to have you guys in the Reformed Church - let the Indy-Fundies have those guys!

What's the difference between the 21st KJV and the AV?

"Fetch a compass"? Easter I understand. Most people today don't realize that Easter refers to the whole festival. But Passover wouldn't be sufficient without a margin note. I'd like to see a margin note at every occurrence of 'unicorn' explaining it was either a rhinoceros or the Elasmotherium.

The vast majority of Greek manuscripts support 'God'. Even White in his KJVO Controversy admitted it should read 'God'. Burgon utterly refutes the reading who/he as spurious in his unanswered Revision Revised. (pg. 98-106, 316, 353, & 424-501; available online). John 1:18 should read "only begotten Son". Carson's argument against 'only begotten' is weak at best. However, 'unique' is much better than "one and only" since such a reading negates adoption. Furthermore, 'God' is a Valentinian corruption of the text. 'Son' is what the vast majority of texts read. Letis' deals with it in the Ecclesiasitical Text (chapter 5) as does Burgon in his Revision Revised (pg 182, 315), Causes of Corruption (pg 165, 215-218), and his The Traditional Text (pg 113-114, 139, 150). Gill deals with it indirectly in his Exposition of the Whole Bible. The foundation for switching from 'Son' to 'God' is (drum roll please) Aleph & B. H. C. Hoskier shows why they should not be used for textual criticism.

I think you meant more "the D. A. Waite and Peter Ruckman type." Hyles never really offered any support of the AV. If I remember correctly he was not originally a KJVOer. He became that later on. However his successor is causing quite a stir by moving away from the extremeness of the original position.

Ruckmanites are the angry, ignorant (not pejorative just descriptive), anti-greek learning type that many run into on this issue. I was told I don't have a real Bible because I don't consider the AV to be more inspired than the original language texts. At one IFBkad church here in town I asked the pastor if he the church had any Hebrew resources that I could check out. I wanted to learn Hebrew to open a door to witnessing to a Jew. The pastor yelled at me, "What do you want to do?!? Retranslate the Bible?!?"

D. A. Waite is lumped in with Ruckman, though he doesn't believe the AV corrects the Greek and Hebrew. And Waite doesn't cuss when preaching. Nor will he call you a moron and some others that would get me banned from this forum as Peter Ruckman does. White does not deal fairly with Waite nor does he deal fairly with Edward Hills (Presbyterian) and other scholars who are AV preferred. My main problem with Waite is he allows his rabid anti-calvinism and pro-Scofield dispensationalism to color his opinions. He also overuses the ad hominem. See David W. Cloud's "The Calvinism Debate." He is also one you may have run into.

You should know that the AV-Preferred position is a Reformed position. Most Dutch Reformed churches uses the AV as do many Free Presbyterian Churches. Ian Paisley recommended that we should only use it. The Protestant Reformed Churches uses it and are against modern versions. Click here.

And of course John Owen & John Gill both defended the underlying texts of the GV & the AV.

I think any true revision of the AV will have to wait until the rationalism of higher criticism and lower criticism (textual criticism) have been swept away with all their attending errors.

Don't let the IFBkad guys poison it for you.
 
Last edited:

MW

Puritanboard Amanuensis
Rev. Winzer, do you know why they didn't make the NKJV an update of the original KJV manuscripts?

If the preface to the NKJV is carefully read it will be seen that this version presumed to make the AV more precise and not simply more readable. This led the committee down the path of seeking academic acceptability. Remarkably, though, its innovations led to less precision, since one cannot make heads nor tails of what the text is actually saying on numerous occasions. E.g., Every English speaker knows what "hell" is, but who can tell what to make of "Hades," which is really only a transliteration, not a translation.
 

JohnGill

Puritan Board Senior
I take great offense at that statement. How dare you demean the most awesomest translation in existence! The Texas Bible!

Which of course properly translates the Hebrew for manna as hominy grits. And them tweren't leeks, they is collard greens.

Texas has no monopoly on hominy grits or collard greens.

Ditto! The Carolinas were founded long before Texas. :lol:

Heretical historical revisionist!! Everyone knows "And one the eighth day God created Texas." Get used to it!! :p

(J/K; except about special creation of Texas)
 
Last edited:

MW

Puritanboard Amanuensis
We expect for you and, who ever else you pick to help you, to finish by 2011 in time for the 400th anniversary of the A.V.

Actually I would like to see a scholarly text-critical work which collates the authorised editions of the AV with the original 1611. That would be a work worthy of the anniversary. For updates, the individual reader can utilise the glossary provided by TBS.
 

Ivan

Pastor
We expect for you and, who ever else you pick to help you, to finish by 2011 in time for the 400th anniversary of the A.V.

Actually I would like to see a scholarly text-critical work which collates the authorised editions of the AV with the original 1611. That would be a work worthy of the anniversary. For updates, the individual reader can utilise the glossary provided by TBS.

Is either a possibility?
 

JohnGill

Puritan Board Senior
We expect for you and, who ever else you pick to help you, to finish by 2011 in time for the 400th anniversary of the A.V.

Actually I would like to see a scholarly text-critical work which collates the authorised editions of the AV with the original 1611. That would be a work worthy of the anniversary. For updates, the individual reader can utilise the glossary provided by TBS.

Are the original notes on the translation by the translators still available?
 

MW

Puritanboard Amanuensis
Are the original notes on the translation by the translators still available?

The only work of which I am aware is, Allen, Ward, Translating for King James; being a true copy of the only notes made by a translator of King James’s Bible, the Authorized Version, as the Final Committee of Review revised the translation of Romans through Revelation at Stationers’ Hall in London in 1610-1611. Taken by John Bois (Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press, 1969).

I can also recall reading something about a marked up copy of the Bishop's Bible but I haven't personally looked into this.
 

LawrenceU

Puritan Board Doctor
Technically, "y'all" is not second person plural. "Thou" is singular and "you" is plural, but "you" is not necessarily all-inclusive. See the words of institution of the Lord's supper for the clear difference: "drink ye all of it."

You've got to be kidding. Y'all is 2nd pl all over Heaven (Dixie). And, For what it's worth Texas was populated by Southerners that couldn't really cut in the glorious country and had to skedaddle. But, we'll claim you for your grit and noble character that developed over time. :)
 

PointyHaired Calvinist

Puritan Board Sophomore
What's the difference between the 21st KJV and the AV?

The KJ21/TMB updates words like "prevent" (precede) which have changed meanings or dropped out of the language. Check out the website.

John 1:18 should read "only begotten Son". Carson's argument against 'only begotten' is weak at best. However, 'unique' is much better than "one and only" since such a reading negates adoption. Furthermore, 'God' is a Valentinian corruption of the text.

Any articles on this? I'm interested. And yes, "Unique" is much better than "one and only", since we're all sons of God if regenerate, right?

I think you meant more "the D. A. Waite and Peter Ruckman type." Hyles never really offered any support of the AV.

We all know Ruckman is a nut. Per Wikipedia (and I've read this myself) -

Wikipedia said:
In his book, Enemies of Soulwinning, Jack Hyles taught that one could not be born again if any other Bible except the King James Version was used.

He even listed the New Scofield KJV as "not the word of God", which I've found excellent, at least when you ignore the notes.

You should know that the AV-Preferred position is a Reformed position. Most Dutch Reformed churches uses the AV as do many Free Presbyterian Churches. Ian Paisley recommended that we should only use it. The Protestant Reformed Churches uses it and are against modern versions. Click here.

Joel Beeke I think is AV-Preferred. I'd tend to put Paisley in the KJVO (rather than KJVP - preferred) camp because of his arguments.

And remember, don't drink the kool-aid!

Nah, I stick with beer. That keeps the indy-fundies away. If that doesn't work, I break out the Scotch (Scottish Covenanter) or Gin (English Puritan) if we have some of the Hyles/Ruckman type.
 

JohnGill

Puritan Board Senior
jtate732,

If you want I can put together a list of pre-20th century books that are downloadable from Google Books and archive.org. Many of the IFB type books I have in favor of the KJVO position are useful for their large bibliographies.

You might find the books useful. They will give you an overview of support for the underlying Greek and Hebrew texts and of support for the AV down through history. There are also many in favor of Griesbach's textual theories. Also if you read German I can post the link to those as well.
 

Robert Truelove

Puritan Board Sophomore
As a 'Pro-Critical Text' guy, I can echo the sentiment that merely reading James White's book and coming to a conclusion is insufficient for this difficult issue. Anyone wanting to come to a studied conclusion must read broadly on this subject. Unfortunately, most Chritians, even pastors, are bored to tears by this subject.

I haven't said it enough here...though I differ with the Traditional Text folks, I genuially appreciate their stand on the authority of the Scriptures even if I do believe they have arrived at erronous conclusions on the subject of textual criticism.

I share the same concern as my Traditional Text brethren that most pastors do not seem to give this subject the proper attention it deserves.
 

JohnGill

Puritan Board Senior
What's the difference between the 21st KJV and the AV?

The KJ21/TMB updates words like "prevent" (precede) which have changed meanings or dropped out of the language. Check out the website.

John 1:18 should read "only begotten Son". Carson's argument against 'only begotten' is weak at best. However, 'unique' is much better than "one and only" since such a reading negates adoption. Furthermore, 'God' is a Valentinian corruption of the text.

Any articles on this? I'm interested. And yes, "Unique" is much better than "one and only", since we're all sons of God if regenerate, right?



We all know Ruckman is a nut. Per Wikipedia (and I've read this myself) -



He even listed the New Scofield KJV as "not the word of God", which I've found excellent, at least when you ignore the notes.

You should know that the AV-Preferred position is a Reformed position. Most Dutch Reformed churches uses the AV as do many Free Presbyterian Churches. Ian Paisley recommended that we should only use it. The Protestant Reformed Churches uses it and are against modern versions. Click here.

Joel Beeke I think is AV-Preferred. I'd tend to put Paisley in the KJVO (rather than KJVP - preferred) camp because of his arguments.

And remember, don't drink the kool-aid!

Nah, I stick with beer. That keeps the indy-fundies away. If that doesn't work, I break out the Scotch (Scottish Covenanter) or Gin (English Puritan) if we have some of the Hyles/Ruckman type.

Here are the links to the three books of Dean John William Burgon:

The Revision Revised

The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels

The Causes of Corruption of the Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels.

The pages I listed earlier were from reprints but should be the same at these links.

I don't think Letis' article is available online. Edward F. Hills' The King James Version Defended deals with it in chapter 5.

Herman C. Hoskier's Codex B and Its Allies A Study and an Indictment deals with it starting here.

I'll put together some other online sources. From what I've read most of the modern writings in support of 'Son' are derivative of Burgon, Scrivener, & Hoskier.

Thankfully I wasn't drinking anything when I read:

Nah, I stick with beer. That keeps the indy-fundies away. If that doesn't work, I break out the Scotch (Scottish Covenanter) or Gin (English Puritan) if we have some of the Hyles/Ruckman type.

I busted out laughing. Classic! I had actually forgot about Hyles Enemies of Soul Winning and the KJV. Thankfully not all indy-fundy's are hylesian ruckmanites. There are even a few that are Reformed Calvinists.

I haven't read about Paisley. I just heard he promoted the usage of the AV.
 

JohnGill

Puritan Board Senior
Is either a possibility?

Not from li'l ol' me.

Yes, sir, I understand that, but since it's going to be the 400th anniversary of the AV I thought perhaps something was in the works. If not an "update" than something promoting the event...something....

With the current negative attitude in 'popular' Christendom towards the AV, I doubt they will plan anything. The TBS or Cambridge might have something in the works. It'd be nice to see a scholarly treatment on the effects of the AV on the English language. Maybe an essay dealing with the distinctive characteristics of Biblical Language.
 

Ivan

Pastor
Not from li'l ol' me.

Yes, sir, I understand that, but since it's going to be the 400th anniversary of the AV I thought perhaps something was in the works. If not an "update" than something promoting the event...something....

With the current negative attitude in 'popular' Christendom towards the AV, I doubt they will plan anything. The TBS or Cambridge might have something in the works. It'd be nice to see a scholarly treatment on the effects of the AV on the English language. Maybe an essay dealing with the distinctive characteristics of Biblical Language.

Perhaps, in honor of the AV, I'll use it exclusively.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top