The KJVO myth...

[robycop3]

The Apocrypha were placed between the Testaments in the AV 1611. They're good study helps.

I believe that if ALL copies of the KJV contained the preface, To The Reader, placed in the AV 1611, that there'd be many-fewer KJVOs today. People can see from this preface that not even the KJV makers were KJVO ! They stated, in so many words, that the AV 1611 was THEIR particular interpretation of the Scriptures, & that other words of equal meaning could be used.

The current edition of the KJVO myth is of fairly-recent origin & is all man-made & therefore false. Only GOD can make true doctrines of faith/worship, and all of them He made are found in His word.

 

[robycop3]

The Origin of the Current KJVO myth
By robycop3

Ever wonder where KJVO-the false doctrine that the KJV is the only valid English Bible translation out there came from? Here's the skinny:

In 1930, a 7th Day Adventist official, Dr. Benjamin Wilkinson(1872-1968), published a book he named "Our Authorized Bible Vindicated" in response to a squabble within the SDA cult. This book is a collection of snippets in favor of the KJV of God's holy word, and is full of goofs, such as the "Psalm 12:6-7 thingie". Apparently, Wilkinson didn't bother to check 0ut the VERACITY of any of the info he gathered. And he copied PARTS of Dean John Burgon's writings, omitting anything that was critical of the Textus Receptus.

He obtained a Scottish copyright for this book, which he apparently allowed to lapse many years ago, as interest in his book was mostly limited to the SDA cult, and for only a short time.

There's no doubt that SDA is a pseudo/quasi-Christian cult, and that Dr. W was a full-fledged SDA official, teacher, and preacher, who often argued for the inerrancy of Ellen Gould White's writings, placing them on a par with Scripture. Several SDA buildings and libraries are named after him.

In 1955, someone called J. J. Ray of Eugene, OR discovered that book, and wrote his/her own book, "God Wrote Only One Bible". Ray copied much of Dr. W's book verbatim in GWOOB without acknowledging him whatsoever, copying many of the goofs in Dr. W's book. Whether Ray obtained Dr. W's permission to use his book, or simply plagiarized it is unknown, but at any rate, Ray used the power of modern media to publicize his/her book, thus starting the idea of KJVO among some of the general public.

Now, try Googling "J. J. Ray" in the Eugene, OR. area. The only one I've found whose lifetime fit the 1955 timeline was a used-car salesman, now deceased, who apparently never published any book. Ray's company, Eye-Opener Publishers, only published that one book. Apparently, "J. J. Ray" is a pseudonym. Now, why would any REAL MAN(or woman) OF GOD use a pseudonym? Apparently, "Ray" was concerned that Dr. W might speak out about his plagiarism.

Then, in 1970, Dr. D. O. Fuller, a Baptist pastor, published "Which Bible?"(3rd revision, 1972), a book which copied much from both Ray and Wilkinson, including many of the original goofs. Like W and Ray before him, he didn't bother to check out the VERACITY of the material he published. And, while he at least acknowledged W, he made absolutely NO mention of W's CULT AFFILIATION. It was this book which brought the public's attention, especially in Baptist circles, to the other two boox, and to KJVO in general. Soon, a whole genre was developed of KJVO boox, all of which drew a large portion of their material from those first three boox.

Now, while Ray's plagiarism and Fuller's deliberate omission of W's CULT AFFILIATION might've been legal, it was certainly DISHONEST, not something any devout Christian would do!

Now, I have not forgotten Dr. Peter S. Ruckman's 1964 works, "Manuscript Evidence" and "Bible Babel". These goof-filled worx was derived largely from Wilkinson's and Ray's books, repeating many of their booboos, such as the "Psalm 12:6-7 thingie". and copying an erroneous chart from Ray's book. Ruckman referred to the title of Ray's book as "God Only Wrote One Book", which hints at the inaccuracy of Ruckman's work. However, Ruckman's works was not among the "foundation stones" of the KJVO myth, as were Ray's and Fuller's boox, both derived from Wilkinson's book.

Virtually every current KJVO author, from Riplinger to Bynum to Melton to Grady to whomever, uses material from those first three boox in their own work, often re-worded, but still the same garbage in a different dumpster. About the only newer material in any of these boox is their criticism of newer Bible versions as they came out. We see a pattern of DISHONESTY in KJVO authorship, as many of its authors copy from each other without any acknowledgement, all of them drawing from a KNOWN CULT OFFICIAL'S book! HOW CAN ANY CHRISTIAN, SEEING ALL THIS DISHONESTY AND ATTEMPTS TO CONCEAL OR JUSTIFY IT, BELIEVE KJVO IS FROM GOD?

These facts are easily verified, either on the Internet or in most public libraries. Unlike KJVOs, we Freedom Readers deal in VERIFIABLE FACT, not fishing stories, opinion, and guesswork. All the boox I mentioned are available online legally, in public libraries, many religious bookstores, or are for sale at various web sites of many religious book stores.

Thus, you see why I, and many other Christians who try to serve God in all aspects of life, are so vehemently against the KJVO myth! It's Satanic in origin, definitely NOT FROM GOD!

I challenge any KJVO to show us any book written before 1930 that is largely about KJVO, and which can be traced to having started the current KJVO doctrine. (Cont. next post)

 

[robycop3]

(Cont. from prev. post)
The KJVO has the burden of proof for his doctrine, as he makes a positive assertions that the KJV is the only valid English Bible translation, and that it's perfect. The Freedom Reader denies the veracity of the KJVO claims, so the KJVO must prove his assertions correct to shift the burden of proof to the Freedom Reader.

The Freedom Reader's first defense is actually the ace of trumps - that the KJVO myth doesn't have one word of Scriptural support. We Christians don't believe any doctrine of faith/worship that doesn't come from Scripture, and KJVO certainly doesn't! Its MAN-MADE origin is well-known, & has been published on many sites. That fact alone effectively kills the KJVO myth's veracity.


The KJVO myth asserts that the KJV is the ONLY valid English Bible translation out there, and that it is perfect. We shall first prove the KJV is NOT perfect.
A glaring error in the KJV is "Easter" in Acts 12:4. First, EASTER DIDN'T EXIST when Luke wrote "Acts". Second, if it HAD then existed, neither Herod nor the Jews he was trying to please would've observed it, as they didn't believe Jesus had been resurrected. The TRUTH is, Herod was waiting for PASSOVER, then ongoing, to be finished. And passover, ACCORDING TO GOD HIMSELF, is seven days long. That's proven in Ezekiel 45:21, a direct quote of GOD HIMSELF: “In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month, you shall observe the Passover, a feast of seven days; unleavened bread shall be eaten."

Furthermore, John 18:28 supports this fact: "Then they led Jesus from Caiaphas to the Praetorium, and it was early morning. But they themselves did not go into the [a]Praetorium, lest they should be defiled, but that they might EAT THE PASSOVER." Now, the paschal lambs had already been eaten the previous evening, so the 'passover' cited here could only be the special unleavened meals to be eaten all week. So, there's no question that passover was ongoing when Peter was busted.

Then, there's the KJV's 1 Tim. 6:10, "the love of money is THE root of ALL evil". While Koine Greek has an equivalent for the English "the", it does not have one for the English "a", so English must supply it for the sentence to make sense in English. But the Greek does NOT have that connecting word between "est(as) & "rhizo" (root).Therefore, "THE root" is incorrect. Also, the Greek "pas", rendered 'all' in this verse in the KJV generally means 'some of all kinds or sorts', so MODERN English Bibles render the passage as "the love of money is A root of ALL SORTS of evil", which reality fits perfectly.

Then, there's Exodus 20:13, "Thou shalt not KILL." The Hebrew 'ratsach', here rendered 'kill', generally refers to murder or wrongful killing. This KJV mistake has caused controversy & protests for many years, including "conscientious objectors" to military service, & protests at execution sites. Again, modern versions correctly render this verse as "You shall not MURDER."

And, there's NO MANUSCRIPT SUPPORT for the words "and shalt be" in Rev. 16:5.

And this is but a short list of the KJV's goofs & booboos.While it's an excellent translation, it's far-from-perfect!

 

[JSRG]

Then, there's Exodus 20:13, "Thou shalt not KILL." The Hebrew 'ratsach', here rendered 'kill', generally refers to murder or wrongful killing. This KJV mistake has caused controversy & protests for many years, including "conscientious objectors" to military service, & protests at execution sites. Again, modern versions correctly render this verse as "You shall not MURDER."

Well, technically, "murder" isn't quite a correct translation either--it's just probably the word in English that best approximates the meaning of the Hebrew word. It is better than "kill" though.

However, I'm not sure this was a mistake in the KJV. It is my understanding that in the past, "kill" had a more limited meaning than it does now. Here's what the Oxford English Dictionary says as to the meaning of the word kill:

"To put to death; to deprive of life; to slay, slaughter. In early use implying personal agency and the use of a weapon; later, extended to any means or cause which puts an end to life, as an accident, over-work, grief, drink, a disease, etc."

It is a more accurate translation under the earlier definition of the term than the modern one.

Of course, this just turns it into a demonstration of a different problem, namely that when relying exclusively on a 400-year-old text, words shift meaning and thus you can come away with erroneous ideas if you're unaware of such shifts. It's why a lot of printings of Shakespeare's plays include footnotes to explain phrases that are no longer used or words that have shifted in meaning. For example, the puns in the opening dialogue of Romeo and Juliet are mostly lost on a modern audience if not explained. Unfortunately, I'm unaware of any printings of the KJV that include footnotes to inform changes in meaning.

 

[Der Alte]

Well, technically, "murder" isn't quite a correct translation either--it's just probably the word in English that best approximates the meaning of the Hebrew word. It is better than "kill" though.
However, I'm not sure this was a mistake in the KJV. It is my understanding that in the past, "kill" had a more limited meaning than it does now. Here's what the Oxford English Dictionary says as to the meaning of the word kill:
"To put to death; to deprive of life; to slay, slaughter. In early use implying personal agency and the use of a weapon; later, extended to any means or cause which puts an end to life, as an accident, over-work, grief, drink, a disease, etc."
It is a more accurate translation under the earlier definition of the term than the modern one.
Of course, this just turns it into a demonstration of a different problem, namely that when relying exclusively on a 400-year-old text, words shift meaning and thus you can come away with erroneous ideas if you're unaware of such shifts. It's why a lot of printings of Shakespeare's plays include footnotes to explain phrases that are no longer used or words that have shifted in meaning. For example, the puns in the opening dialogue of Romeo and Juliet are mostly lost on a modern audience if not explained. Unfortunately, I'm unaware of any printings of the KJV that include footnotes to inform changes in meaning.

This source has found 750 words in the KJV which have changed in meaning.
King James Bible Wordlist & Definitions

 

[robycop3]

Well, technically, "murder" isn't quite a correct translation either--it's just probably the word in English that best approximates the meaning of the Hebrew word. It is better than "kill" though.

However, I'm not sure this was a mistake in the KJV. It is my understanding that in the past, "kill" had a more limited meaning than it does now. Here's what the Oxford English Dictionary says as to the meaning of the word kill:

"To put to death; to deprive of life; to slay, slaughter. In early use implying personal agency and the use of a weapon; later, extended to any means or cause which puts an end to life, as an accident, over-work, grief, drink, a disease, etc."

It is a more accurate translation under the earlier definition of the term than the modern one.

Of course, this just turns it into a demonstration of a different problem, namely that when relying exclusively on a 400-year-old text, words shift meaning and thus you can come away with erroneous ideas if you're unaware of such shifts. It's why a lot of printings of Shakespeare's plays include footnotes to explain phrases that are no longer used or words that have shifted in meaning. For example, the puns in the opening dialogue of Romeo and Juliet are mostly lost on a modern audience if not explained. Unfortunately, I'm unaware of any printings of the KJV that include footnotes to inform changes in meaning.

"Kill" also applies (and applied) to LEGAL EXECUTIONS, as prescribed in the very next chapter of Exodus. And any time an animal eats, it kills something, plant or another animal. "Kill" is just too-general a term, as it means ending the life of something for whatever reason.

 

[robycop3]

I'll never forget an incident of several years ago. A Korean doctor moved into my 'hood; he was also a new Christian, & new to the English language. He asked me if I could lend him a Bible til his Korean edition arrived. Without thinking, I gave him a KJV.

A coupla days later, he came by, being distressed bny "sulffer little children" in the KJV. I explained what that meant, & gave him a copy of the NASV to use.

There are many native English speakers who don't know an archaic meaning for "suffer" is "allow". (Its main usage in that respect today is "suffrage", the right to vote.)

While the Model T was fine for the roads of 1909 & the KJV was fine for the British of 1611, both are outdated now, replaced by better models.

 

[Non-profit Prophet]

This source has found 750 words in the KJV which have changed in meaning.
King James Bible Wordlist & Definitions

According to that source, this is what we should be reading... but instead of updating the words, we are to learn the meanings of all the archaic words and maintain the original language...

 

[robycop3]

But of course - it's a KJVO site!

I have a Hendrickson Edition replica AV 1611. The only differences between it & an original (besides the PRICE, of course!) is its physical size & its Roman font. (I was privileged to examine an original several years ago !)

 

[Non-profit Prophet]

According to that source, this is what we should be reading... but instead of updating the words, we are to learn the meanings of all the archaic words and maintain the original language...
View attachment 274217

Here’s a small sample of how the 1611 Only crowd wants us to read our bibles...


“Fo2 God fo loued y wo2ld that he gaue his only begotten Sonne that whofoeuer beleeueth in him fhould not perifh but haue euerlafting life.“

While it can be read by those familiar with it, this modern font closely replicates what our “easiest” bibles would look like if we were to believe we should not alter the authorized language.

BYW, the language used in the 1611 was chosen to reflect the cultural language of that day... if written today with the same intent as expressed by the 1611 translators, our “authorized version” today would read more like... well, like the NIV for some. If written in the South (USA), it would reflect that culture...

1 Corinthians 1:26 might read something like, “Y’all, be thinkin’ what you was when you was call’d.”

The reaction some of you diehard KJVers have reading that is the same as the general population felt when the 1611 was written to cater to cultural language.

If KJV was acceptable in the time it was (roughly) translated, then modern language should be as acceptable now...

 

[Der Alte]

I'll never forget an incident of several years ago. A Korean doctor moved into my 'hood; he was also a new Christian, & new to the English language. He asked me if I could lend him a Bible til his Korean edition arrived. Without thinking, I gave him a KJV.
A coupla days later, he came by, being distressed bny "sulffer little children" in the KJV. I explained what that meant, & gave him a copy of the NASV to use.
There are many native English speakers who don't know an archaic meaning for "suffer" is "allow". (Its main usage in that respect today is "suffrage", the right to vote.)
While the Model T was fine for the roads of 1909 & the KJV was fine for the British of 1611, both are outdated now, replaced by better models.

My wife is Korean and I have served in Korean churches since the late 70s. If a persons's native language is not English the KJV is pretty much unintelligible to them, I use the KJV but also have to use modern translations.

 

[Non-profit Prophet]

But of course - it's a KJVO site!

I have a Hendrickson Edition replica AV 1611. The only differences between it & an original (besides the PRICE, of course!) is its physical size & its Roman font. (I was privileged to examine an original several years ago !)

That’s awesome!

 

[robycop3]

And another thing...The KJV isn't actually "authorized" ! KJ, as titular head of the Anglican Church, merely gave the clerics permission to make a new translation.

The only "authorized" English Bible version is the "Great Bible " (named for its physical size) which Henry VIII commanded to be made.

 

[The Liturgist]

And another thing...The KJV isn't actually "authorized" ! KJ, as titular head of the Anglican Church, merely gave the clerics permission to make a new translation.

The only "authorized" English Bible version is the "Great Bible " (named for its physical size) which Henry VIII commanded to be made.

That’s not quite correct; the KJV was commissioned by King Charles to try to placate the feuding Puritans and Presbyterians, who liked the Geneva Bible, who he wanted to unite with the Church of England, with the Bishop’s Bible, which the KJV closely resembled. Thus it is called by the Church of England the Authorized Version; it is also authorized insofar as it is the official scripture for use with the Book of Common Prayer, except for the Psalter (the BCP retains the Coverdale Psalter, as there exists a consensus among Anglicans the Coverdale Psalter is better for singing).

Like the 1662 BCP, the KJV/AV is Crown Copyright in perpetuity and may only be printed under license from the Crown (presently, Cambridge has a monopoly on KJV and BCP printing in the UK having acquired the Queen’s Printer).

 

[robycop3]

Thanx for the update & intel !

The others who hold, or held,the Crown copyright on the KJV are the University of Oxford, the Ayres & Spottiswoode Co, & Harper Collins. Robert Barker, KJ's royal printer, was the first holder of this copyright.

 

[David Kent]

But of course - it's a KJVO site!

I have a Hendrickson Edition replica AV 1611. The only differences between it & an original (besides the PRICE, of course!) is its physical size & its Roman font. (I was privileged to examine an original several years ago !)

You mean the black letter. Roman is modern style like Times New Roman.

 

[robycop3]

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.

The copyrights issue is horse feathers. Personally, I'm GLAD to see the copyright in my Cambridge Edition KJV, which tells me I have a genuine, unaltered copy. Same for my NKJV, NASV, & other copyrighted versions I have.

"Public Domain" means anyone can alter the work to suit themselves.

 

[dqhall]

The copyrights issue is horse feathers. Personally, I'm GLAD to see the copyright in my Cambridge Edition KJV, which tells me I have a genuine, unaltered copy. Same for my NKJV, NASV, & other copyrighted versions I have.

"Public Domain" means anyone can alter the work to suit themselves.

Public domain means the copyright expired, or the author(s) published the work as a public service and did not apply for a copyright for their work.

Patents also protect intellectual property, although their duration is shorter.

 

[Oseas]

The copyrights issue is horse feathers. Personally, I'm GLAD to see the copyright in my Cambridge Edition KJV, which tells me I have a genuine, unaltered copy. Same for my NKJV, NASV, & other copyrighted versions I have.

"Public Domain" means anyone can alter the work to suit themselves.

To have the genuine letters of Scriptures is good, but be genuine or not, what matters is the Spirit; the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. Them which that have only the letter of Scriptures, genuine or not, and have not the Spirit they are killers of souls . 2 Corinthians 11:v.13-15 clarifies the why they are killers of souls.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

The copyrights issue is horse feathers. Personally, I'm GLAD to see the copyright in my Cambridge Edition KJV, which tells me I have a genuine, unaltered copy. Same for my NKJV, NASV, & other copyrighted versions I have.

"Public Domain" means anyone can alter the work to suit themselves.

I think the KJV mechanical rights (ie publishing) are owned by the Queen and exploited by Cambridge under letters patent. The performing rights (ie copying etc the content) are public domain.