Where did King James only originate?
- Thread starter ResidentAlien
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Men translated the kjv like any and all translations
, the reason many hold to it is because that’s the tradition they learned in thier church or from thier elder Christians
and yea I don’t disagree we should trust Gods word . That’s why we should each choose a version we trust and can understand and not insist everyone read the same version when not everyone understands the kjv language can’t trust what we don’t understand
, the reason many hold to it is because that’s the tradition they learned in thier church or from thier elder Christians
and yea I don’t disagree we should trust Gods word . That’s why we should each choose a version we trust and can understand and not insist everyone read the same version when not everyone understands the kjv language can’t trust what we don’t understand
I don't think there is one. It was the translation available to the christian who was not a scholar when there were people who opposed any reading of scripture by the every day Christian. For this reason its impact on history was tremendous. They defended the bible they grew to love.
Their defense of this translation had nothing to do with the way scripture was translated, it had to do with loving scripture. When other translations were sold over time, those passages did not agree with the passages they had memorized, so they objected.
Their defense of this translation had nothing to do with the way scripture was translated, it had to do with loving scripture. When other translations were sold over time, those passages did not agree with the passages they had memorized, so they objected.
-
2
-
1
- Show all
For all intents and purposes "Yes".
'In a private letter dated 1851, Mr. Hort betrayed his hatred toward the revered Textus Receptus when he wrote: " I had no idea until the last few weeks of the importance of texts having read so little Greek Testament and dragged on with the villainous Textus Receptus. Think of that vile Textus Receptus leaning entirely on late manuscripts."
Thus at only twenty-three years of age and having admitted to reading little of the Greek Testament, Hort concluded that the Textus Receptus was "vile" and "villainous." The more a person researches Mr. Hort, the more that an image emerges of him as a misfit with an axe to grind. Never mind that this master greek text had withstood the test of time and the scrutiny of a vast array of biblical language scholars far superior to him for the previous two and a half centuries; never mind that it was in near perfect agreement with over 99% of all known Greek manuscripts....
https://www.bibleready.org/westcott-and-hort
Yes. At that time the Revised Version (RV) of 1881 was the only competing one. And both of them (and others) rejected that translation. Burgon was much more outspoken, but Scrivener quietly rejected the theory as well as the text and translation called the Revised Version.
Here is a comment by Burgon in The Revision Revised:
...the plain fact being that the men of 1611 — above all, that William Tyndale 77 years before them — produced a work of real genius; seizing with generous warmth the meaning and intention of the sacred Writers, and perpetually varying the phrase, as they felt or fancied that Evangelists and Apostles would have varied it, had they had to express themselves in English...
'In a private letter dated 1851, Mr. Hort betrayed his hatred toward the revered Textus Receptus when he wrote: " I had no idea until the last few weeks of the importance of texts having read so little Greek Testament and dragged on with the villainous Textus Receptus. Think of that vile Textus Receptus leaning entirely on late manuscripts."
Thus at only twenty-three years of age and having admitted to reading little of the Greek Testament, Hort concluded that the Textus Receptus was "vile" and "villainous." The more a person researches Mr. Hort, the more that an image emerges of him as a misfit with an axe to grind. Never mind that this master greek text had withstood the test of time and the scrutiny of a vast array of biblical language scholars far superior to him for the previous two and a half centuries; never mind that it was in near perfect agreement with over 99% of all known Greek manuscripts....
https://www.bibleready.org/westcott-and-hort
Yes. At that time the Revised Version (RV) of 1881 was the only competing one. And both of them (and others) rejected that translation. Burgon was much more outspoken, but Scrivener quietly rejected the theory as well as the text and translation called the Revised Version.
Here is a comment by Burgon in The Revision Revised:
...the plain fact being that the men of 1611 — above all, that William Tyndale 77 years before them — produced a work of real genius; seizing with generous warmth the meaning and intention of the sacred Writers, and perpetually varying the phrase, as they felt or fancied that Evangelists and Apostles would have varied it, had they had to express themselves in English...
That we should trust? Each version to his own liking? Are we not supposed to have one final authority, being the Scriptures? All the different versions contain different words which have different meanings, and even contain different truths.
Not everyone understands the KJV language? How about humbling thyself and study to shew thyself approved unto God. We're talking about God's Holy word. I would expect that maybe we don't understand everything.
What do future doctors do when they get to med school and read about things, and hear words they've never heard before? They study because it's that important to them.
Not everyone understands the KJV language? How about humbling thyself and study to shew thyself approved unto God. We're talking about God's Holy word. I would expect that maybe we don't understand everything.
What do future doctors do when they get to med school and read about things, and hear words they've never heard before? They study because it's that important to them.
-
1
- Show all
I have a friend that defended the KJV only movement with Shakespeare. He asked if I would oppose Shakespeare as a teaching aide in English class. I said, "Why would I or not oppose Shakespeare in English class? I wasn't aware that he was an English teacher." "Haven't you ever read Shakespeare?" He asked.
"Nope, never, but we read lots of Steinbeck and Hemingway." I answered.
"Nope, never, but we read lots of Steinbeck and Hemingway." I answered.
Nope...
The KJV (currently used version and not the first two) is actually a new translation that King James had nothing to do with. He had been dead quite some time when the work began.
It is a completely new work Oxford and Cambridge universities translation made for the Church of England. They only slapped that name on it because of the constant bickering that went on the whole time it was being created...they needed a name so they used "King James Version".
It was never a success after it's creation...just like it's namesake translations we're pretty much undistributed.
In the early 1900's printers were having issues getting enough work so a massive effort to sell work a massive marketing campaign for a Bible translation that held no copyright was needed...and it was the KJV. (WWI was ongoing at the time)
Shakespeare used the Geneva Bible...it was England's first "common man's bible" because for the first time in history every family could actually afford their own copy of the Bible. It also had "glosses" or commentary that helped with "difficult" sections.
Where the ruling class was more concerned over local control or central control of the church congregations the Geneva Bible was promoting Calvinism from the Calvinists in Geneva Switzerland who made the Bibles affordable.
The KJV (currently used version and not the first two) is actually a new translation that King James had nothing to do with. He had been dead quite some time when the work began.
It is a completely new work Oxford and Cambridge universities translation made for the Church of England. They only slapped that name on it because of the constant bickering that went on the whole time it was being created...they needed a name so they used "King James Version".
It was never a success after it's creation...just like it's namesake translations we're pretty much undistributed.
In the early 1900's printers were having issues getting enough work so a massive effort to sell work a massive marketing campaign for a Bible translation that held no copyright was needed...and it was the KJV. (WWI was ongoing at the time)
Shakespeare used the Geneva Bible...it was England's first "common man's bible" because for the first time in history every family could actually afford their own copy of the Bible. It also had "glosses" or commentary that helped with "difficult" sections.
Where the ruling class was more concerned over local control or central control of the church congregations the Geneva Bible was promoting Calvinism from the Calvinists in Geneva Switzerland who made the Bibles affordable.
King James came after Shakespeare was dead... Elizabeth...the Virgin Queen...the one that came after Bloody Mary was the Queen of England at the time of Shakespeare. The Geneva Bible was the popular Bible at that time. It was cheaper than the ones that could produce out of the Royal Printers.
Look at this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Bible
Look at this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Bible
I am of the kjv-superior position and I came to that conclusion on my own; I did not get my understanding from any singular originator of the concept that may have been the first to speak of it.
I think that the burden of proof is on you to substantiate that Wilkinson was the first to be a proponent of the doctrine.
I think that the burden of proof is on you to substantiate that Wilkinson was the first to be a proponent of the doctrine.
-
1
-
1
- Show all
Okay, some good points. But I'm still not hearing Hort or anyone else say "We'll eradicate that vile Textus Receptus if it's the last thing we do!" They were simply onto something they felt was better.
If the KJV only movement started with Westcott and Hort, it seems to me it was a paranoid overreaction to new manuscripts and the critical method. Never mind how ridiculous the idea of one version and one version only is, in their minds it was better than the alternative.
The Hort quotes from above can be seen in their original volume and context here:
https://archive.org/details/lifelettersoffen01hortuoft/page/211/mode/1up
If the KJV only movement started with Westcott and Hort, it seems to me it was a paranoid overreaction to new manuscripts and the critical method. Never mind how ridiculous the idea of one version and one version only is, in their minds it was better than the alternative.
The Hort quotes from above can be seen in their original volume and context here:
https://archive.org/details/lifelettersoffen01hortuoft/page/211/mode/1up
The KJV may have been beautiful in its day. But the fact remains: it uses high literary English to render colloquial Greek. This alone disqualifies it as a version that can be taken seriously. It's not really even a translation; it's a revision of the Geneva Bible.
I'm not saying all modern versions that attempt to render the Greek into colloquial English are perfect either. But their method is far superior.
I'm not saying all modern versions that attempt to render the Greek into colloquial English are perfect either. But their method is far superior.
-
1
-
1
-
1
- Show all