|
|
|
|
|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 5/14/2007 2:26:22 PM
|
|
|
phyl2
Posts: 245
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
He apparently believed that the Textus Receptus represented the closest to the original.
Yes, I believe that he did beleive that. But, I've seen quotes in which he agreed that certain readings within the KJV were not correct, and should be changed. He, however, was unwilling to change them.
I guess you could say that he was not KJVO in theory, but in practice, he was.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 5/14/2007 2:48:26 PM
|
|
|
Prado
Posts: 103
Joined: 5/12/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: phyl2
quote:
He apparently believed that the Textus Receptus represented the closest to the original.
Yes, I believe that he did beleive that. But, I've seen quotes in which he agreed that certain readings within the KJV were not correct, and should be changed. He, however, was unwilling to change them.
I guess you could say that he was not KJVO in theory, but in practice, he was.
In other words, he did not destroy his academic reputation. KJVOers do not have that obstacle.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - One Stop Thread - 5/14/2007 4:34:25 PM
|
|
|
GrahamCracker
Posts: 1864
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Dallas, TX
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Prado
quote:
ORIGINAL: GrahamCracker
Let me revise my earlier statements.
1) I believe the KingJamesOnlyism, as the label of a movement was probably coined by James White and did not appear until the 1990s. That's when I first heard it. But there were people teaching it in the 70s, just not using that label.
That's not in dispute, though.
True. But since I had made some earlier statements which differed from the evidence, I felt the need to modify my position in order to reflect the evidence. I did not want to present only the evidence that reflected my earlier understanding of the history.
quote:
quote:
2) Active pro-KJVO activity probably did not appear until the 50s or the 60s, the 30s at the earliest. There was a book written by a 7th Day Adventist in the 30s.
Evidence, please- not pro-KJV, pro-KJVO.
Sure. You want book titles? Some of the links I have already provided provide the evidence. There are a number of articles on the very websites I have linked. Otis Fuller wrote a book which came out in the 50s, if I am not mistaken. Several books followed.
BTW, none of the links I provided are KJVO.
_____________________________
Larry
Sure we're under the law, everybody knows that!
When He said, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear. (Heb 10:13)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - One Stop Thread - 5/14/2007 4:45:29 PM
|
|
|
Prado
Posts: 103
Joined: 5/12/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: GrahamCracker
quote:
quote:
2) Active pro-KJVO activity probably did not appear until the 50s or the 60s, the 30s at the earliest. There was a book written by a 7th Day Adventist in the 30s.
Evidence, please- not pro-KJV, pro-KJVO.
quote:
Sure. You want book titles?
Quotes.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 5/14/2007 4:59:48 PM
|
|
|
GreekGeek
Posts: 67
Joined: 4/22/2005
From: Hamilton, OH
Status: offline
|
Ezra said:
"As a matter of fact, the English language was molded by the KJV, and this is acknowledged by students of English literature."
I earned a degree in English Literature with a specialty in Elizabethan. The English language was not molded by the KJV translation. Read the English versions that preceded the KJV and you'll find a very similar style. In fact, Tyndale himself (very early in the process) was duplicated quite often by the KJV translators.
I'm one voice only, but that is my input.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - One Stop Thread - 5/14/2007 5:00:17 PM
|
|
|
GrahamCracker
Posts: 1864
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Dallas, TX
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Prado
quote:
Sure. You want book titles?
Quotes.
I can't get quotes unless I have the books. Basically, you are selectively screening the evidence--saying, in essence, that if there are no quotes the evidence isn't valid.
That's fallacious.
_____________________________
Larry
Sure we're under the law, everybody knows that!
When He said, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear. (Heb 10:13)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 5/14/2007 6:00:13 PM
|
|
|
GrahamCracker
Posts: 1864
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Dallas, TX
Status: offline
|
Which Bible? was published in 1970.
QUOTEIn 1970, a wholesale "revisionism" was launched with the publication by David Otis Fuller of WHICH BIBLE? Composed chiefly of a heavily edited reprint of Wilkinson's very defective and inaccurate book (and with Wilkinson's Adventism deliberately concealed from the gullible reader), the KJV-only movement was triggered. Soon, all of Fundamentalism's prior history was jettisoned and a newfound doctrine of an error-free KJV was fabricated, then imposed on uninformed churches, Bible colleges, and publications. This newly manufactured "orthodoxy" became the true test of "sound doctrine," and was written into the confessions of faith of numerous churches and Bible colleges--the fact that it had to be added is proof that it was NOT a doctrine of earlier Fundamentalism.UNQUOTE
http://www.kjvonly.org/doug/kutilek_which_bible.htm
_____________________________
Larry
Sure we're under the law, everybody knows that!
When He said, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear. (Heb 10:13)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - One Stop Thread - 5/14/2007 6:07:49 PM
|
|
|
Prado
Posts: 103
Joined: 5/12/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: GrahamCracker
quote:
ORIGINAL: Prado
quote:
Sure. You want book titles?
Quotes.
quote:
I can't get quotes unless I have the books.
Then there may be no quotes.
quote:
Basically, you are selectively screening the evidence--saying, in essence, that if there are no quotes the evidence isn't valid.
If there are no quotes there is no reason to disbelieve the statement that it was the NIV that stimulated KJVOism. In the circumstances, as things stand, that seems a very reasonable explanation for the sudden rise of this remarkable notion. In its day, the RSV was very popular, but there was no KJVO reaction. It is therefore very difficult to believe KJVOers when they object to translations based on non-TR source texts. A much more reasonable explanation is that, for the first time in the history of the world, the public had in the NIV a Bible in their hands that was both accurate (comparatively) and accessible.
This conclusion was borne out by two experiments I conducted. On two separate occasions, in different places, I presented un-named translations to KJVOers that were uncontroversial KJV passages with no more alteration than basic modernisation. So this sentence, for instance:
'And when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto his disciples, Why eateth your Master with publicans and sinners?' Matt 9:11 KJV
became:
'And when the Pharisees saw it, they said to his disciples, Why does your Master eat with publicans and sinners?' Matt 9:11
On both occasions the passages were totally rejected, with no reason given. My conclusion was that the most important value that these KJVOers placed on the KJV is its inaccessibility- unless they were history freaks who wanted to live in the past.
< Message edited by Prado -- 5/14/2007 6:45:24 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 5/14/2007 6:35:24 PM
|
|
|
Prado
Posts: 103
Joined: 5/12/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: GrahamCracker
Which Bible? was published in 1970.
QUOTEIn 1970, a wholesale "revisionism" was launched with the publication by David Otis Fuller of WHICH BIBLE? Composed chiefly of a heavily edited reprint of Wilkinson's very defective and inaccurate book (and with Wilkinson's Adventism deliberately concealed from the gullible reader), the KJV-only movement was triggered. Soon, all of Fundamentalism's prior history was jettisoned and a newfound doctrine of an error-free KJV was fabricated, then imposed on uninformed churches, Bible colleges, and publications. This newly manufactured "orthodoxy" became the true test of "sound doctrine," and was written into the confessions of faith of numerous churches and Bible colleges--the fact that it had to be added is proof that it was NOT a doctrine of earlier Fundamentalism.UNQUOTE
http://www.kjvonly.org/doug/kutilek_which_bible.htm
Ok, this is better. However, it predates the NIV NT by only 2-3 years, and may have been pre-emptive, translation of the NIV commencing in 1967. Perhaps in 1966 the GNB (then the TEV), which was also popular, had fired a shot warning of what was to come. Also, quite what the word 'numerous' means is uncertain. Certainly, few people were very aware of the KJVO movement until much later than this, and this beginning must have gone almost unnoticed in 'the land of many cults'.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 5/14/2007 6:43:29 PM
|
|
|
GrahamCracker
Posts: 1864
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Dallas, TX
Status: offline
|
quote:
Ok, this is better. However, it predates the NIV NT by only 2-3 years, and may have been pre-emptive, translation of the NIV commencing in 1967. Perhaps in 1966 the GNB (then the TEV), which was also popular, had fired a shot warning of what was to come. Also, quite what the word 'numerous' means is uncertain. Certainly, few people were very aware of the KJVO movement until much later than this, and this beginning must have gone almost unnoticed in 'the land of many cults'.
In some religious circles it was largely unknown. Amongst those with whom I was acquainted, there was quite a hoopla--as the website that I referenced has borne out. Please take the trouble to read the articles and you will find correspondence of people now passed away.
_____________________________
Larry
Sure we're under the law, everybody knows that!
When He said, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear. (Heb 10:13)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 5/14/2007 7:02:28 PM
|
|
|
Prado
Posts: 103
Joined: 5/12/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: GrahamCracker
quote:
Ok, this is better. However, it predates the NIV NT by only 2-3 years, and may have been pre-emptive, translation of the NIV commencing in 1967. Perhaps in 1966 the GNB (then the TEV), which was also popular, had fired a shot warning of what was to come. Also, quite what the word 'numerous' means is uncertain. Certainly, few people were very aware of the KJVO movement until much later than this, and this beginning must have gone almost unnoticed in 'the land of many cults'.
quote:
In some religious circles it was largely unknown.
Presumably that is just in the USA. Outside the USA it must have been completely unknown, except to visitors.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 5/14/2007 9:49:03 PM
|
|
|
GrahamCracker
Posts: 1864
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Dallas, TX
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Prado
Presumably that is just in the USA. Outside the USA it must have been completely unknown, except to visitors.
Outside the USA, it would not have been an issue. Bible study has been on the decline in Britain and other English speaking countries.
_____________________________
Larry
Sure we're under the law, everybody knows that!
When He said, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear. (Heb 10:13)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 5/15/2007 4:46:59 AM
|
|
|
Prado
Posts: 103
Joined: 5/12/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: GrahamCracker
quote:
ORIGINAL: Prado
Presumably that is just in the USA. Outside the USA it must have been completely unknown, except to visitors.
Outside the USA, it would not have been an issue.
Because people outside the USA have more sense of history, more education, more common sense than to imagine that any mere translation is comparable to the manuscripts discovered among them? Because British people who claimed as the best the clapped out KJV, the very last common translation that would count as such, would not be taken seriously? It was not in Britain that 'NIV terror' set in. UK churches very soon filled with GNBs to replace RSVs, NIVs to replace them, and today there are many modern translations in use; it is only USA-led influence that keeps the KJV in use at all there. The USA has its own, unique problems that apply nowhere else. 'Only in America' the British say, shaking their heads in disbelief, and only in America could the KJVO idea have been spawned.
Americans live in a dream world. Apparently believers in Mormonism, JWism, 6-day creationism, a host of other ideas that Europeans find unbelievably cranky, they need to realise how risible American religion is outside their own cosy little parish. They should not presume upon the gracious reluctance of Christians to say what they really think about the cultic, hypocritical nature of American religion as a whole.
quote:
Bible study has been on the decline in Britain and other English speaking countries.
That comment reflects the American problem very well. Until the 'net changed the face of bookselling, 1 in 8 British bookshops were Bible bookshops, and there won't be that much difference even now.
< Message edited by Prado -- 5/15/2007 6:55:59 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 5/15/2007 6:03:53 AM
|
|
|
37818
Posts: 371
Joined: 4/24/2005
From: Mira Loma, California
Status: offline
|
The KJV has its issues. And the KJVO postion only undermines the true word of God - even as good as the KJV is.
The KJV has more advantages over its known and touted problems. The problems of the RSV, NRSV, RV, ASV, NASB, NIV, etc. have less known problems - but they have their own set of problems. And some of them are the same ones in the KJV! Or make them worst, even creating new ones.
The RV, ASV, RSV, NRSV are one family of translation. The NASB is an unauthorized revsion of the ASV. The ASV is the American version of the RV.
_____________________________
Jesus Christ God's only-begotten Son. Incarnate, both fully God and fully man and one and the same God with His Father. God is neither begotten nor made. Father, Son and Holy Spirit, three Persons who are one God. This is not negotiable - no discussion.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 5/15/2007 6:13:17 AM
|
|
|
37818
Posts: 371
Joined: 4/24/2005
From: Mira Loma, California
Status: offline
|
Some family trees from the KJV.
KJV
|
RV
|
ASV
|
RSV
|
NRSV
Next in the spirit of the tradition of the KJV.
KJV
|
RV
|
ASV
|
NASB
And more recently.
KJV
|
NKJV
_____________________________
Jesus Christ God's only-begotten Son. Incarnate, both fully God and fully man and one and the same God with His Father. God is neither begotten nor made. Father, Son and Holy Spirit, three Persons who are one God. This is not negotiable - no discussion.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 5/15/2007 7:02:25 AM
|
|
|
Prado
Posts: 103
Joined: 5/12/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: 37818
The KJV has its issues. And the KJVO postion only undermines the true word of God - even as good as the KJV is.
Agreed that KJVOery makes a mockery of Christianity- but in what sense is any translation good? Serious scholars do not use them. One would never even dream of attempting to prove a doctrine from a translation. Anything of importance in Biblical matters is done using source texts. So the use of translations is in propagation to those who have no reference to original source texts. This means that the target language must be that of the target audience or readership if it is to be properly understood. This explains to a large extent the existence of translations into increasing modern, increasingly accessible English. The KJV, the Geneva Bible, the Bishops' Bible, even the RV, ASV and the like are redundant, except for historical study, and for those who actually find obscuration desirable. My own view is that KJVOers would be equally content with any of those translations simply because they are difficult to understand.
Maybe the ludicrous KJVO debate has had a beneficial effect is focusing minds on the role of translations, because even modern translations are being increasingly seen as arbitrary, questionable and of use for little more than reference, to give a gist. Those who make claims from Scripture had better have sound backing from Greek or Hebrew or risk being sent packing. Those who have no reference to original source texts used to be a massive majority, but this majority is no longer so massive. People increasingly know what the Bible actually says, and can point out where translations are faulty, or where translators have deliberately altered what it says, in line with heresies current at the time of translation. So in one sense, no published translation is good, and certainly not the KJV, which has its fair share of alterations as well as being unreadable for many people.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 5/15/2007 7:15:33 AM
|
|
|
rosswell59
Posts: 1003
Joined: 3/25/2006
Status: offline
|
Serious scholars use interpretations too, their own. But what about the rest of us who don't have a capacity to translate the original languages much less sort through the various manuscripts and determine which one to take what from. I thank God that there are very good scholarly interpretations including the KJV which are adequate to meet the needs of most believers.
Yours in Christ,
Ross
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 5/15/2007 7:26:49 AM
|
|
|
Prado
Posts: 103
Joined: 5/12/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: rosswell59
Serious scholars use interpretations too, their own. But what about the rest of us who don't have a capacity to translate the original languages
Such people lie prone to the interpretation of scholars, who may be mistaken, who may be motivated by desire to corrupt. Mistakes and corruptions can be easily detected by those with access to original languages, and access to them is available quite cheaply these days, particularly for computer owners.
quote:
there are very good scholarly interpretations including the KJV which are adequate to meet the needs of most believers.
The KJV is not the Word of God, then. But surely only the Word of God is adequate?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 5/15/2007 1:05:50 PM
|
|
|
brotherbrian
Posts: 298
Joined: 3/6/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Prado
quote:
ORIGINAL: GrahamCracker
quote:
ORIGINAL: Prado
Presumably that is just in the USA. Outside the USA it must have been completely unknown, except to visitors.
Outside the USA, it would not have been an issue.
Because people outside the USA have more sense of history, more education, more common sense than to imagine that any mere translation is comparable to the manuscripts discovered among them? Because British people who claimed as the best the clapped out KJV, the very last common translation that would count as such, would not be taken seriously? It was not in Britain that 'NIV terror' set in. UK churches very soon filled with GNBs to replace RSVs, NIVs to replace them, and today there are many modern translations in use; it is only USA-led influence that keeps the KJV in use at all there. The USA has its own, unique problems that apply nowhere else. 'Only in America' the British say, shaking their heads in disbelief, and only in America could the KJVO idea have been spawned.
Americans live in a dream world. Apparently believers in Mormonism, JWism, 6-day creationism, a host of other ideas that Europeans find unbelievably cranky, they need to realise how risible American religion is outside their own cosy little parish. They should not presume upon the gracious reluctance of Christians to say what they really think about the cultic, hypocritical nature of American religion as a whole.
quote:
Bible study has been on the decline in Britain and other English speaking countries.
That comment reflects the American problem very well. Until the 'net changed the face of bookselling, 1 in 8 British bookshops were Bible bookshops, and there won't be that much difference even now.
What country do you live in now, Prado?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 5/15/2007 1:10:04 PM
|
|
|
Prado
Posts: 103
Joined: 5/12/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: brotherbrian
quote:
ORIGINAL: Prado
quote:
ORIGINAL: GrahamCracker
quote:
ORIGINAL: Prado
Presumably that is just in the USA. Outside the USA it must have been completely unknown, except to visitors.
Outside the USA, it would not have been an issue.
Because people outside the USA have more sense of history, more education, more common sense than to imagine that any mere translation is comparable to the manuscripts discovered among them? Because British people who claimed as the best the clapped out KJV, the very last common translation that would count as such, would not be taken seriously? It was not in Britain that 'NIV terror' set in. UK churches very soon filled with GNBs to replace RSVs, NIVs to replace them, and today there are many modern translations in use; it is only USA-led influence that keeps the KJV in use at all there. The USA has its own, unique problems that apply nowhere else. 'Only in America' the British say, shaking their heads in disbelief, and only in America could the KJVO idea have been spawned.
Americans live in a dream world. Apparently believers in Mormonism, JWism, 6-day creationism, a host of other ideas that Europeans find unbelievably cranky, they need to realise how risible American religion is outside their own cosy little parish. They should not presume upon the gracious reluctance of Christians to say what they really think about the cultic, hypocritical nature of American religion as a whole.
quote:
Bible study has been on the decline in Britain and other English speaking countries.
That comment reflects the American problem very well. Until the 'net changed the face of bookselling, 1 in 8 British bookshops were Bible bookshops, and there won't be that much difference even now.
What country do you live in now, Prado?
Phil 3:20
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 5/15/2007 3:11:25 PM
|
|
|
brotherbrian
Posts: 298
Joined: 3/6/2007
Status: offline
|
That's an awfully easy way out for someone who went to some length to ridicule America and American culture.
What country of residence does your passport show?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 5/15/2007 3:24:38 PM
|
|
|
Fritzpw_Admin
Posts: 7709
Joined: 2/28/2005
From: New Jersey
Status: offline
|
Prado's citizenry is not the topic if this thread.
Please stay on topic.
Please do not reply to this message within the Community.
Please email Community@salemwebnetwork.com with questions, comments, or concerns.
Please do not send me PMs regarding this message.
Messages which disregard the words in red will be removed without warning and the poster may also be banned.
_____________________________
Fritz
Senior Manager of Social Media
fritz@salemwebnetwork.com
Want to see my latest online project? Check out http://budurl.com/CWonFacebook
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 5/15/2007 5:58:46 PM
|
|
|
manwe
Posts: 200
Status: offline
|
I made a slight correction/addition: the ESV is an opposite update of the RSV from the NRSV but comes from the same line.
quote:
ORIGINAL: 37818
Some family trees from the KJV.
KJV
|
RV
|
ASV
|
RSV
|
NRSV /
|
ESV (2000)
On a side note: Despite some of the shortcomings of the NRSV (ie. wind of God (Gen 1:2); young woman (Isa 7:14?); Happy is the man... (Ps 1:1), etc.) the more I read the ESV, the more I think I have a preference for the NRSV, I think it is better, imo. Also, the political nature of the NRSV was to promote gender neutrality, whereas the ESV is goes the other way, toward gender exclusivity, (no women allowed) - Personally, I prefer the politics of the NRSV.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 5/15/2007 7:38:56 PM
|
|
|
GrahamCracker
Posts: 1864
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Dallas, TX
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Prado
One would never even dream of attempting to prove a doctrine from a translation. Anything of importance in Biblical matters is done using source texts. So the use of translations is in propagation to those who have no reference to original source texts. This means that the target language must be that of the target audience or readership if it is to be properly understood. This explains to a large extent the existence of translations into increasing modern, increasingly accessible English.
Gee, I dunno. I don't see a problem with proving a doctrine from the translation as long as the translation is reliable. Quite often cults make more issues out of the original language (as if they actually know them, which they generally don't) than scholars who preach exegetically.
Harold Hoehner, a scholar who attends my church is alleged to have said: "Greek is like underwear, it should have a good fit but no one should ever see it."
_____________________________
Larry
Sure we're under the law, everybody knows that!
When He said, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear. (Heb 10:13)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 5/15/2007 7:42:31 PM
|
|
|
Prado
Posts: 103
Joined: 5/12/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: GrahamCracker
quote:
ORIGINAL: Prado
One would never even dream of attempting to prove a doctrine from a translation. Anything of importance in Biblical matters is done using source texts. So the use of translations is in propagation to those who have no reference to original source texts. This means that the target language must be that of the target audience or readership if it is to be properly understood. This explains to a large extent the existence of translations into increasing modern, increasingly accessible English.
Gee, I dunno. I don't see a problem with proving a doctrine from the translation as long as the translation is reliable.
Indeed!
|
|
|
|
| |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
