The KJVO myth...

[Albion]

Well, actually, there's a lot more to Jacobean/Elizabethan English than that. There are many everyday words not that were in use then, but whose meanings have changed greatly. Some examples:

TARGET - Once meant a small shield, from "targe", a large shield.

CONVERSATION - Once meant "lifestyle".

LET - Once meant "hinder" as well as "allow", depending on context.

CAREFUL - Once meant "anxious".

CHARITY - Once meant "love".

FURNITURE - once meant "a saddle".

IMAGINATION - Once meant "stubbornness".

Well, you get the picture. There are many more such words. (having the ability to learn Chaucer's English while in elementary school, so I could read his works as he had written them, I had no prob with Elizabethan English in Shakespeare, & later, in the KJV & Geneva Bible versions.)

I appreciate the point, but for all of that, when you go to the KJV, you find that 9 out of 10 times, the meaning is the same as if you'd picked up one of a dozen versions that came out more recently. Meanwhile, most of these have their own problems which are not shared by the KJV.

I guess my point is that the much-discussed inadequacies of the KJV really seem to be not that serious most of the time. And if we still feel that the NIV or one of the others is better on balance, we ought to consider the loss we suffer with them in the areas of beauty and inspiration, etc.

To read some of these editions, it seems like one is back reading at the fourth grade level. And this does matter, IMO.

 

[chilehed]

But I did run accross a proof that God inspired the KJV of the Bible, it was on another thread but it got no replies. I guess it was that good..

I don't see how it can be considered any sort of proof at all, so maybe folks figured it's easier to just let it speak for itself.

 

[Jude1:3Contendforthefaith]

KJV
NKJV
Douay-Rheims

are better then these new Bibles that are coming out today in my opinion.


.

 

[1Reformedman]

I am not KJV only, I use the NKJV. But I did run accross a proof that God inspired the KJV of the Bible, it was on another thread but it got no replies. I guess it was that good.....just kidding...but I will post it here. It's pretty amazing actually.

Most scholars have what is called a view that is called "verbal plenary inspiration." At least the most reputable ones do anyway. Basically every dot, or grammar mark is there by divine inspiration. Granted grammar markings were added roughly a thousand years later. But you get the point. And further more what is inspired is the original autographs in hebrew, greek and parts of aramaic. English translations have numerous errors and that is why I have never heard of a scholar even claiming remotely that the english translations are inspired. Yet something must be. God's hand must have been on the Bible, because it survived all these years. The Bible is getting more and more accurate in english. Well as long as they use the proper manuscripts (but more on that later). Well anyway, there was something that popped up in social media this week, and I did some digging and it's sort of interesting. It supports at least a partial inspiration of an english translation (the KJV). I am not sure if this works with any other translation, but we can talk about that here. Anyway I will post the initial picture so you can read it. Notice that the original Bible did not have verse markings, or chapter markings, or maybe even the same book order. So this is sort of a unique version of your typical inspiration argument. This is at least a partial evidence of a partial inspiration behind the KJV. Now don't get me wrong, the KJV has numerous errors and had numerous revisions. But the point is that God's hand was on this translation, and I believe as I will get into later, there is reason for that. I actually use the NKJV, which is heresy to the KJV onlyist. So please don't say I am KJV only. But I think it's interesting this only works on the KJV bible, and there are books out that say that all other modern translations are based on forged manuscripts.

Here is a link for more info on the forgery, as well as an open thread to discuss it:
OneTab shared tabs

But I didn't want to ruffle feathers about the forgery, so forget I mentioned it. what I want to focus on is that it appears the Holy Spirit endorsed at least one english translation (I am not saying it's perfect, by any means, but that the project itself was endorsed).

Here is the image that I want to submit as evidence:

View attachment 268837

Here is a review of the above evidences, that mention this only occurs in the KJV Bible: possibly the NKJV too. The implications of this study are staggering, is God endorsing the chapter and verse divisions of the scriptures? If so how? I mean many many greek scholars have found errors in verse and chapter divisions. So again it's not God saying this english work is perfect. But that God is saying, I just want you to know I am here, I see your work in trying to preserve my word and I am with you, I endorse your effort.

Psalm 117 the Shortest Psalm in the Bible – This 'n That

I totally disagree. The only inspired texts were the originals. No copies of the originals are inspired text. They are copies of the inspired text.

 

[JSRG]

So again I would like to present the evidence that the KJV has evidence at least of inpiration. So far no one has refuted it. So I will wait for a bit longer then unsubscribe. Take your time.

Reply to this post:
The KJVO myth...

What do you mean no one has refuted it? People have correctly pointed out that it's incoherent to use this to argue for the KJV because the KJV didn't come up with this chapter/verse numbering. Further, this would apply to any Bible that uses this chapter/verse numbering, not just the KJV.

But the argument has an additional problem. Even if this as limited to the KJV and the KJV did come up with the numbering system... what does this prove? That the central verse of the Bible is an interesting one? People claim all kinds of weird mathematics-based hidden messages in the Bible, I see no reason to see this as anything particularly special.

So the argument that the KJV is somehow unique relies on something that seems coincidental, isn't limited to the KJV, and didn't originate from the KJV. So how is this in any way an actual argument for the KJV?

 

[JM]

KJV
NKJV
Douay-Rheims

are better then these new Bibles that are coming out today in my opinion.


.

I agree with this and would go further and state that it's very sad that Protestants (me included) can't identify or agree upon a standard NT text. For a body of Christians who claim to be sola scriptura it is telling that we can't seem to find a static, authentic text to base our theology on.

I use the King James, Douay-Rheims, the Orthodox Study Bible (LXX, NKJ) and the RSV Didache Bible.

 

[createdtoworship]

I totally disagree. The only inspired texts were the originals. No copies of the originals are inspired text. They are copies of the inspired text.

Please.go.back to the link in that post. I show an image proving the inspiration of not only the KJV but also God's hand upon the all.of the organization of the KJV verse divisions etc. It's not saying they are perfect but that God's hand is upon the KJV. And as far as I know this does not work with other bibles like the NIV or ESV or NASB.

 

[createdtoworship]

What do you mean no one has refuted it? People have correctly pointed out that it's incoherent to use this to argue for the KJV because the KJV didn't come up with this chapter/verse numbering. Further, this would apply to any Bible that uses this chapter/verse numbering, not just the KJV.

But the argument has an additional problem. Even if this as limited to the KJV and the KJV did come up with the numbering system... what does this prove? That the central verse of the Bible is an interesting one? People claim all kinds of weird mathematics-based hidden messages in the Bible, I see no reason to see this as anything particularly special.

So the argument that the KJV is somehow unique relies on something that seems coincidental, isn't limited to the KJV, and didn't originate from the KJV. So how is this in any way an actual argument for the KJV?

So how do you explain the supernatural aspect of my evidence? Aliens did it? Random mutation overy millions of years? Obviously God hand is not only on the KJV but on the divisions. I am not saying the text is perfect as.far as error free, nor the divisions that were added in the 12th century I believe. But never the less it is a.sign of God's signature upon the KJV whereas other translations like the NIV or NASB simply don't have the same divine signature.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

I have heard that this only works with the KJV bible but it may work for the NKJV but not sure. I don't know how to test it. But I would think that if snopes could disprove such an important christian discovery that it would. Snopes is typically anti God and anti christian. I would think all they have to do is put the KJV text into an engine.

Not enough. You made the claim, so why don't you do the homework there bro? Just make 3 columns: Book, Chapter, Verses, then go through the KJV and tally it up. If it works, do it for say the NASB and the NKJV (2 witnesses). You can then present the working papers as proof. Thanks, I'll wait.

 

[JSRG]

So how do you explain the supernatural aspect of my evidence? Aliens did it? Random mutation overy millions of years? Obviously God hand is not only on the KJV but on the divisions.

First you say no one had refuted your post, even though multiple people had responded to it. Now you ask for an explanation for the "supernatural aspect" even though I already noted:

"Even if this as limited to the KJV and the KJV did come up with the numbering system... what does this prove? That the central verse of the Bible is an interesting one? People claim all kinds of weird mathematics-based hidden messages in the Bible, I see no reason to see this as anything particularly special."

There is no supernatural aspect because there's not anything particularly special about the central verse. I can say it's an "interesting" one in that it's not as forgettable as something like Exodus 40:22, but it's hardly special enough to merit the argument that it being the central verse somehow shows some kind of special inspiration or requires any greater explanation than it being a simple quirk of the arbitrary division.

I am not saying the text is perfect as.far as error free, nor the divisions that were added in the 12th century I believe. But never the less it is a.sign of God's signature upon the KJV whereas other translations like the NIV or NASB simply don't have the same divine signature.

The NIV and NASB use the same verse numbering system, though. So it fits for them also. "Aha!" you say. "But they omit verses, don't they?" They include them, albeit in footnotes. (well, depends on the verse--some are put into the footnotes, whereas others are included in the main text but accompanied with a footnote) They're still there. But even if we accept that we have to renumber them on that basis, it seems the onus is on you to do the legwork, determine what the new center verse is, and then compare it.

But an amusing thing I didn't realize until now is that your argument actually works against the KJV. You see, Psalm 118:8-9 are not the central verses of the KJV. Why? Because the KJV included the deuterocanon--that is, the books/chapters in Catholic bibles but normally not included in Protestant ones (e.g. Tobit, Wisdom, the extra chapters of Esther and Daniel). Now, much later editions of the KJV dropped them to save money as it meant they printed less (I think this occurred in the 19th century), but that was still in the original KJV. That means Psalm 118:8-9 is not the central verse in the actual KJV. And if it being the central verse is key to proving something is specially inspired, that actually means the KJV cannot be specially inspired.

So even if the central verse being Psalm 118:8 proves something, then one should be accepting that the Revised Standard Version (which, aside from the deuterocanonicals, I do not believe leaves out any verses from the KJV, only using footnotes to mark off the more dubious portions) over the KJV, as the RSV had it as its actual central verse, but the KJV did not.

 

[The Liturgist]

I notice one "Bible Highlighter" tried to defend the KJVO myth with some 40-yr. old stuff that's been long-refuted.

Does he, or any other KJVO have anything new ? Far as I'm concerned, the KJVO myth is just that-a MAN-MADE MYTH -& is phony as a Ford Corvette!

One question for KJVOs-

WHERE IS THE SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT FOR THE KJVO MYTH ?
Without Scriptural support, no doctrine of faith/worship can be true.

I'm asking RESPECTFULLY; no flaming or word war intended. I just want to see some ACTUAL JUSTIFICATION for the KJVO myth.

I love the KJV, but its only one of several good Bible translations.

 

[The Liturgist]

I appreciate the point, but for all of that, when you go to the KJV, you find that 9 out of 10 times, the meaning is the same as if you'd picked up one of a dozen versions that came out more recently. Meanwhile, most of these have their own problems which are not shared by the KJV.

I guess my point is that the much-discussed inadequacies of the KJV really seem to be not that serious most of the time. And if we still feel that the NIV or one of the others is better on balance, we ought to consider the loss we suffer with them in the areas of beauty and inspiration, etc.

To read some of these editions, it seems like one is back reading at the fourth grade level. And this does matter, IMO.

I agree, in terms of eloquence, and for use in worship, the KJV is sublime. I also really admire the Douay Rheims; and the Coverdale Bible, which provides Psalter in the Book of Common Prayer, which has a better chantability than the KJV Psalter. Except for Psalm 23, where the KJV wins.

And for that matter, any liturgy or service book or hymnal or translation following what we might agree to call the “Ecclesiastical English” of the KJV and 1604 Book of Common Prayer, but with modern spelling and typography of the sort that emerged in the 19th century, is pleasing to me. The old NIV is as elegant as modern translations get, and I do enjoy reading it from time to time, but it is just not as beautiful (the new edition based on TNIV is terrible, and Zondervan’s effort to totally suppress the old edition has infuriated many people and seems to me bad business).

 

[Strong in Him]

Here is the image that I want to submit as evidence:

View attachment 268837

Here is a review of the above evidences, that mention this only occurs in the KJV Bible: possibly the NKJV too. The implications of this study are staggering, is God endorsing the chapter and verse divisions of the scriptures?

Sorry but, as cool as that might be, it is not evidence.

As has been already mentioned, chapters and verses were added later, they did not appear in the original text. I don't know how it was decided how the divide the chapters of the Bible, or the Psalms. I am told that, for example, Psalms 42 + 43 were thought to have been one Psalm originally.
So it's not evidence of divine inspiration, because we don't know that someone didn't think "I know, let's find an important verse in the Bible and make it the central one; let's make it so there are the same number of chapters and verses on each side". Unlikely, maybe, but it could have happened.
I am pretty sure that this works for the NIV Bible too; I seem to remember trying it once.

That said, the Scriptures were written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and he can inspire, challenge, guide, correct us through ANY translation of God's word. I don't use the KJV myself; I prefer the NIV, but have also used the Amplified and NRSV Bibles, and referred to the Living Bible and the Message.

 

[Daniel C]

Don't read it then.

 

[Heavenhome]

Here I go, ready to be shot down, but I don't know why those who do not like the KJV or KJVo are so obsessed about it.
It comes up time and time again.

If you don't like it, don't read it, but also there is no need to go out if your way to harp about it or try to convince us that your way us the right way.
It is the King James for me all the way, if I was Greek or Jewish I would read it in its original languages but I'm not.
I have gone back to the original languages at times to compare and I am happy with the King James translation.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

KJV
NKJV
Douay-Rheims

are better then these new Bibles that are coming out today in my opinion.


.

They all have their strengths and weaknesses. I like the Eth Cepher, not so much for its translation, but the fact it includes apocryphas, deuteros, has translations of the Hebrew names, and has restored the 'aleph-tavs' in the Tanakh. Now that's value-adding imho.

 

[Redwingfan9]

I notice one "Bible Highlighter" tried to defend the KJVO myth with some 40-yr. old stuff that's been long-refuted.

Does he, or any other KJVO have anything new ? Far as I'm concerned, the KJVO myth is just that-a MAN-MADE MYTH -& is phony as a Ford Corvette!

One question for KJVOs-

WHERE IS THE SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT FOR THE KJVO MYTH ?
Without Scriptural support, no doctrine of faith/worship can be true.

I'm asking RESPECTFULLY; no flaming or word war intended. I just want to see some ACTUAL JUSTIFICATION for the KJVO myth.

The best argument is that KJV is a translation based soley on the ancient scriptures handed down for centuries while modern translations use fragments that have been discovered in the last 150 years (think dead sea scrolls and such) and as such are not scriptures handed down from the ancient church. I would submit this is an argument for a King James mostly outlook as a modern translation could be done without the use of newly discovered documents.

 

[Call me Nic]

I much prefer a church like mine that only uses and advocates for the King James, rather than a multitude of versions. The primary benefit is unity of the scriptures, a single Word of God. This prevents confusion when discussing the scriptures which I've seen can come first-hand in a church where all of its members use differing translations. Trying to have multiple versions say the same things differently cannot all be the Word (singular) of God.

Either agree on one superior translation, or leave KJVO alone.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

The best argument is that KJV is a translation based soley on the ancient scriptures handed down for centuries while modern translations use fragments that have been discovered in the last 150 years (think dead sea scrolls and such) and as such are not scriptures handed down from the ancient church. I would submit this is an argument for a King James mostly outlook as a modern translation could be done without the use of newly discovered documents.

The KJV is overwhelmingly based on the Tyndale Bible.
The Roots of the KJV: Tyndale and the "Geneva Bible"

It's Crown copyright now (at least the publishing rights).

Ultimately interpretive errors are due largely to the reader's doctrinal presuppositions and unconscious biases, imho. We're a long way from the ancient Hebraic cultural idiom and their figures of speech.

 

[Redwingfan9]

The KJV is overwhelmingly based on the Tyndale Bible.
The Roots of the KJV: Tyndale and the "Geneva Bible"

It's Crown copyright now (at least the publishing rights).

Ultimately interpretive errors are due largely to the reader's doctrinal presuppositions and unconscious biases, imho. We're a long way from the ancient Hebraic cultural idiom and their figures of speech.

It's also based on the Geneva Bible. As for copyright, at least in the US the KJV is in the public domain. I can't speak for the UK.