KJV only Question

[OzSpen]

All (or at least, most) translations build on the work of previous translators. The AV (=KJV) was not the first English translation - it followed several previous and very influential translations. Wycliffe made the first translation into English from the Latin Vulgate. It was banned in 1409. Tyndale made the first translation into English from the Greek, with the complete New Testament first published in 1526. Also banned in England. Tyndale paid for his efforts with his life. However, later translations were heavily influenced by his work, including the Authorised Version (KJV). King James authorised this translation to displace the more popular Geneva Bible.

There's a reasonably good overview of 'Bible translations into English' in Wikipedia.

We must not forget that the Roman Catholic Douay-Rheims Bible, in English, was translated shortly before the KJV. It was translated from the Latin Vulgate Bible. Many Protestants seem to overlook this.

Before the KJV, there was also the Bishop's Bible, which is mentioned in the Wikipedia article.

 

[SavedByGraceThruFaith]

can you hold to King James onlyism without being legalistic? most of who that are KJVO give the impression to me that they are legalist.I am not kjv only yet, but i am studying textual criticism and stuff from both sides and the middle, right now im byzantine priority with sympathies for the TR. but when i get older my views may change.

Can you hold to your own position without being legalistic?

Holding to the truth is not legalism at all.

Thinking you can earn salvation by anything we do is legalism.

 

[alex2165]

Thank you guys, you presented good replies, and I learn useful things from you.

Is any history of the earliest translation of the Bible presiding year 1400 is recorded?

I also remember reading something concerning, if I can spell it right “cannon”, canonization of the Bible by a certain council of Biblical scholars.

And I also remember that they included and compile into Bible only those manuscripts which only belonged to the first century A.C, but rejected later manuscripts. So I wonder, what year it was when this cannon took place?

 

[1ofGodsChildren]

Nvm.

 

[OzSpen]

Thank you guys, you presented good replies, and I learn useful things from you.

Is any history of the earliest translation of the Bible presiding year 1400 is recorded?

I also remember reading something concerning, if I can spell it right “cannon”, canonization of the Bible by a certain council of Biblical scholars.

And I also remember that they included and compile into Bible only those manuscripts which only belonged to the first century A.C, but rejected later manuscripts. So I wonder, what year it was when this cannon took place?

There is some useful information included in the Wikipedia article on 'Biblical canon' (note the spelling is canon and not cannon).

I found this to be an excellent resource on many matters concerning the inspiration, canonization, transmission and translation of the Bible: Norman L Geisler & William E Nix 1986. A General Introduction to the Bible, rev & exp. Chicago: Moody Press. This online link will give you an overview of the chapters. There are 7 chapters dealing with the canonization of the Bible. Enjoy.

You have asked some great questions.

Oz

 

[JGiddings]

I know I am responding to a post a few pages back, but I must protest the statement that all other translations are descendants of the KJV. That is simply not true.
Let's take the NIV for example...it has no ties to the kjv whatsoever.
The KJV is from a different text variant.
The NLT, no ties. The HCSB same.
The ESV, the NRSV and the NKJV, of all of the modern translations CAN be seen as descendants of the KJV.
I am sure there are more, but I stuck to the more known translations out there today.

 

[JGiddings]

Do you think possibly that a translation can be convoluted, by a hidden agenda?

Oh yes definately!
"The Message" comes to mind. Actually the ESV is slanted towards Calvinism because of the translation committee being Reformed Christians mainly. That agenda isn't advertised, but also isn't an extreme. Could be called an "hidden" agenda, or not. An agenda to me? yes.
Just an example.

 

[stan1953]

I know I am responding to a post a few pages back, but I must protest the statement that all other translations are descendants of the KJV. That is simply not true.
Let's take the NIV for example...it has no ties to the kjv whatsoever.
The KJV is from a different text variant.
The NLT, no ties. The HCSB same.
The ESV, the NRSV and the NKJV, of all of the modern translations CAN be seen as descendants of the KJV.
I am sure there are more, but I stuck to the more known translations out there today.

I agree. The NKJV is the only version that used the same manuscripts as the KJV and was done to modernize the KJV. All the other English translations had their own independent committees. Most have used the GNT, BHS and LXX as texts.

 

[random person]

The ESV, the NRSV and the NKJV, of all of the modern translations CAN be seen as descendants of the KJV.
I am sure there are more, but I stuck to the more known translations out there today.

The 1901 ASV which some believe is the most accurate modern English translation, superior to ESV, NRSV, and NKJV

 

[JGiddings]

The 1901 ASV which some believe is the most accurate modern English translation, superior to ESV, NRSV, and NKJV

Man I looked up the ASV (in leather of course!) on eBay and Amazon........and IT IS EXPENSIVE! I want one very badly.
Sorry off-topic .

 

[Keachian]

Man I looked up the ASV (in leather of course!) on eBay and Amazon........and IT IS EXPENSIVE! I want one very badly.
Sorry off-topic .

It is in the Public Domain which means you should be able to get a free electronic version, it uses the Revised version as its English basis, which uses the KJV as its English basis. The ASV has been used as the basis for the RSV, and the WEB I can't remember where the NASB comes in but it is of the same family, as are the ESV and NRSV which are based on the RSV.

 

[random person]

Man I looked up the ASV (in leather of course!) on eBay and Amazon........and IT IS EXPENSIVE! I want one very badly.
Sorry off-topic .

Here are two versions that I believe print on demand:

Hardcover (read the reviews)

American Standard Version Bible:Amazon:Books

Softcover

The Holy Bible American Standard Version:Amazon:Books

But neither is cheap!

 

[stan1953]

Man I looked up the ASV (in leather of course!) on eBay and Amazon........and IT IS EXPENSIVE! I want one very badly.
Sorry off-topic .

I have a Holy Bible (KJV) dated 1868. Have no idea what it is worth.

You can get the Kindle version of the ASV online for 99 cents!

 

[preacherinblack]

I've got another KJV only question , what does it mean when a KJV bible believer says the KJV translators were lead by God to translate the KJV?

 

[Alithis]

historical question for clarification .

did any one die as a result of ,or linked to, the attempt to produce the KJV in English en-mass for the every day man to read ?

 

[preacherinblack]

i do not know?

 

[preacherinblack]

historical question for clarification .

did any one die as a result of ,or linked to, the attempt to produce the KJV in English en-mass for the every day man to read ?

i do not know I've heard stories but idk

 

[stan1953]

I've got another KJV only question , what does it mean when a KJV bible believer says the KJV translators were lead by God to translate the KJV?

It means they are trying to support their POV that the KJV is inspired, when in fact it is ONLY a translation. Original manuscripts of the Bible were inspired but NOT any translations, including English.

 

[HantsUK]

historical question for clarification .

did any one die as a result of ,or linked to, the attempt to produce the KJV in English en-mass for the every day man to read ?

Unlikely. It was an official translation authorised by King James for the Established Church of England, with the purpose of displacing the Geneva Bible.

There were already several English translations in use: The Bishops Bible and the Great Bible were the authorised versions (which the AV/KJV superseded), the Douay-Rheims Version was the Roman Catholic version, and the Geneva Bible. The Geneva Bible was probably the most important of these, preferred by the Dissenters (including early Baptists), but disliked by King James.

 

[SavedByGraceThruFaith]

It means they are trying to support their POV that the KJV is inspired, when in fact it is ONLY a translation. Original manuscripts of the Bible were inspired but NOT any translations, including English.

So, in essence, you are saying that we do not know what the word of God really says since there are errors.

To be consistent with their theory of yours, when you post or quote scripture, you should say:

Jesus Christ might have said ….

The word of God might say ….

God might have said …

The bible might say ….

Thus might have saith the Lord ….

Yes the originals are inspired and without error.
But God always provides for His people and He provides His word in their native language (see Acts 2).

For English speaking people that is the King James Bible.

So I can honestly say:
Jesus said ….
the word of God says …
God said …
The Holy Bible says …
Thus saith the Lord …

But you cannot honestly say that,

Amazing.