The Best Cure for KJVOism: A Real 1611 KJV

Reprinted with permission from As I See It. AISI is sent free to all who request it by writing to the editor at dkutilek@juno.com

It has been widely publicized that the year 2011 is the 400th anniversary of the original publication of the “Authorized” or King James Version of the Bible in English. Historically, this translation has been the most widely used, at least since it overtook the previous champion, the Geneva Bible of 1560 (chiefly, at least initially, as a result of the legal suppression of the printing of the Geneva Bible by the British monarchy, in favor of the KJV).

Note, however, that the great majority of the editions and copies of the KJV printed and read in the past 400 years have been revisions rather than reprints of the original form of the KJV, with literally tens of thousands of revisions in spelling, punctuation and the use of italics, plus many hundreds of revisions in the precise wording of the text. Later editions also included the switch from “black letter” (“Gothic”) type to Roman, the widespread omission of the Apocrypha in the 18th and later centuries, along with the omission of an extended calendar and charts of biblical genealogies. Most unfortunately, later editions omit the extremely important and informative introductory essay, “The Translators to the Readers,” which was included in the original edition. In short, most KJV users, particularly those who claim to be “King James Version 1611 Only” in their beliefs, have never actually seen or used a real 1611 King James Version in the original form in which it was issued from the press in 1611.

Past facsimiles

In the past facsimile reprints of the 1611 KJV have been produced from time to time. In 1833, “The Holy Bible, an exact reprint page for page of the Authorized Version published in the year 1611” was printed at the University Press, Oxford. It featured Roman type.1 In 1911, the University Press at Oxford issued two 1611 reprints—the first a facsimile (in black letter) in reduced size of the original 1611 KJV, the other an exact reprint page-for-page but in Roman type, both with introductory essays by A. W. Pollard.2 I have owned a copy of the 1911 Roman type reprint for almost 35 years.

This 1911 Roman type reprint was reissued in the 1970s (or early 1980s) by Thomas Nelson of Nashville, about the time they issued their New King James Version (and for a time Nelson sold the two volumes together in a slipcase). This reprint omitted the Pollard essay (and perhaps other features—I gave my copy to one of my sons a few years ago and cannot check it directly). Later—probably in the 1990s—Hendrickson Publishing also reprinted the 1911 Roman type edition (in precisely the form Nelson had). These two recent reprints are easy to find via the Internet.

Besides these, over the years various publishers have produced several full-sized facsimile reprints of the 1611 KJV. My brother has a copy of one made in the 1950s, for which he paid $350, used, a decade ago. Such full-sized facsimiles are rarely seen and are generally rather pricey (in the hundreds or even many hundreds of dollars).

An affordable new facsimile

Now, another edition, widely available and quite inexpensive, has appeared. This one is made by Zondervan and sold at Wal-Mart (and perhaps other retail outlets). The ISBN is 978-0-310-44029-1. It is a facsimile—an exact reproduction in the original black letter script—of the 1611 edition, but in a reduced size, and with one feature of the original omitted—the thirteen books of the Apocrypha (as noted on p. viii of the Introduction to this new edition). That the 1611 KJV originally did have the Apocrypha can be visually confirmed in this edition on the page containing Malachi 4, where the “catch-word” at the bottom of the page is “APO-” which points to “APOCRYPHA” which is at the top of the next page in the original (and in my 1911 reprint), after which originally followed the complete text of those non-canonical books. [amazon 0310440297 thumbnail]

The printed retail price of this Zondervan 2011 facsimile reprint is $7.99, though I have bought several copies at Wal-Mart in Kansas for $4.97. I have heard it priced about a dollar higher elsewhere (and I suspect they hope to make a profit on the publication of the KJV at that price). I would strongly urge every preacher, every Christian reader and every church and Christian college library to get a copy at once. If you have any KJVO friends, buy and give them a copy. There is no quicker cure for KJVOism that the direct and extended study of the 1611 edition, introductory material and all.

One finds in the actual, original, genuine 1611 KJV (no doubt “preserved in the form God wants us to have”) an introductory essay that states the translators’ perspective on their own and other translations (they, at least, were decidedly not “KJV-only”). If I could do just one thing to combat KJVOism, I would have every KJVO believer carefully read those eleven, highly informative pages. The original translators’ English Bible text has literally thousands of variant marginal renderings (showing that they did not believe their translation as found in the text was infallibly correct), plus variant manuscript readings, showing that they did not believe that the manuscript reading given in their text was necessarily always right. One will also find numerous places where words are “omitted,” “added” or altered as compared with all modern editions of the KJV, to say nothing of a considerable number of printer’s errors (are these also part of the “perfect preservation” we hear so much about?). And one can discover on the title page of the NT those revealing words: “cum privilegio” (Latin: “with privilege”) which demonstrate the fact that this translation was copyrighted from the day it was first published (contrary to the misrepresentation on this point that is often part of KJVO teaching).

I am quite sure that the quickest “cure” for KJVOism is the close and careful study of the actual original KJV itself. I would challenge—even dare—everyone of KJVO persuasion to get this facsimile of the original KJV and study it cover to cover and margin to margin, spending a year and more in the process, and try to prove me wrong.

(Photos of a copy of the Zondervan 400th anniversary facsimie 1611. Click to enlarge.)

dedication page

apo

 

Notes

1 See A. S. Herbert, Historical Catalogue of Printed Editions of the English Bible 1525-1961. London: British and Foreign Bible Society, 1968; p. 377.

2 Ibid., p. 458.

[node:bio/douglas-k-kutilek body]

29759 reads

There are 82 Comments

B-Lowry's picture

As you say, the Translators' Preface would be especially valuable to read and understand. (And the second word "understand" is the key one.) Merely reading and understanding the section on "An Answer to the Imputations of our Adversaries" would do the trick, I think.

And if they did not understand the older English, they could purchase the booklet from the ABS that contains the original preface in a facsimile, the same in Roman type and an updated "translation" of the preface.

Then again, perhaps the whole KJVO thing is a judgment on the arrogance of Americans.

Aaron Blumer's picture

EditorAdmin

Just want to point out that there are several varieties of KJVO and not all of them believe that the KJV contains no translation errors, no alternative textual selection, etc.
But for those that do, a 1611 facsimile is a great eye opener. The margins are full of "or this" and "or that" alternatives.

(The very unprofessional photos are mine. Picked up a copy yesterday for the church library.)

Bill... I'm curious: what does "the arrogance of Americans" have to do with it?

Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.

Bob Hayton's picture

Could "arrogance of the Americans" refer to our assumption of the superiority of English? As in, those living in Europe or other parts of the world, cannot but rub shoulders with other languages frequently. They thus are intimately aware of the issues inherent in translation. Most people in Europe are bilingual. Contrast that with Americans who believe earnestly that their country is superior to all others, and that people coming to their country should just learn English. In that mindset, why shouldn't English be the last best thing when it comes to languages and Bibles, for that matter? And not understanding how translation works, many assume any deviation from the English of one translation is necessarily a capitulation from God's Word.

Is that what you're getting after, Bill?

Striving for the unity of the faith, for the glory of God ~ Eph. 4:3, 13; Rom. 15:5-7 I blog at Fundamentally Reformed. Follow me on Twitter.

dcbii's picture

EditorModerator

I used to attend a church that went to KJVO while I was there. I bought one of the older reprints (with Roman type and the included Apocrypha) as a bit of a tweak for both sides. The non-KJVO side couldn't tell me that 1. I didn't really have a 1611 copy and 2. that it would be impossible for people today to read it. I used it as my main church Bible for probably about 8 years or so until I switched to an iPhone as my main Bible. For the KJVO side, I had the preface to the reader, the notes about variants in the margins, and so on, so when I heard all about the best texts, I could point out that the KJV scholars weren't 100% sure about every word either (fewer mistakes is little help when your contention is that the text behind the translation is perfect).

In short, I agree with the author that having a copy is a good defense against most unthinking KJVO-ism, but it also shows just how good and usable the 1611 still is, even though it isn't ideal for many who aren't educated in reading skills. I'd like to have one of these in e-format to add to my iPhone, but that probably seems backwards to most.

I did just order one of the new reprints to be able to have one with the old Gothic type.

Dave Barnhart

Ron Bean's picture

Because the supporting texts are the issue for me, I carry my 1599 Geneva as my tweak. If it was good enough for the Pilgrims it's good enough for me.

"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan

dcbii's picture

EditorModerator

Bob Hayton wrote:
Most people in Europe are bilingual. Contrast that with Americans who believe earnestly that their country is superior to all others, and that people coming to their country should just learn English.

Well, since I married a German citizen, I determined to learn German and I did. I fully expect to use it and I do when I am in Germany, which is fairly frequently. However, by the same token, I do in fact expect people coming here to learn English. That's not just an American perspective. Germans expect that people immigrating there learn German. I've read plenty about that in their news and commentary. Like us, they are concerned about immigrants not integrating themselves into the culture. For an extreme example of this, try traveling to France sometime. I've noticed that many will only attempt English with you if you demonstrate that you know another besides English, even if it isn't French. (When I did that, they almost invariably concluded that I was Swiss, not American, since of course, Americans are anything but bilingual.)

I do appreciate the perspective that learning another language has given me on the whole Bible translation issue, and how difficult and complex it is, and why the KJV doesn't really matter to non-English speakers.

(By the way, even though I think immigrants to America should learn good English, I'm not one of those who thinks we should take the KJV to other countries and attempt to force them to learn English to read the Bible, just in case the argument in your post was going that way.)

So I do think your point about Americans' arrogance and English is well taken, though I think believing people should speak English in America is not really part of that problem.

Dave Barnhart

Kevin Subra's picture

For years I've used the KJV's Letter to the Translators and excerpts from my 1611 KJV facsimile copy by Nelson (apparently now out of print: http://www.amazon.com/Holy-Bible-1611-James-Version/dp/0840700415/) as core tools to teach a proper view of the origins of the Bible, and to counter the KJVO views. The original 1611 has the marginal translation variations and included Apocrypha (!), which for some reason is not referenced in KJVO circles much.

(In "another life," I was a bookstore manager at FBBC. People would come in looking for the 1611, and I'd take them to the only copy we had - the Nelson facsimile. The puzzled looks were rewarding. ;>D)

I am for accurate, literal translations, of which the KJV is one (of the few), but it is just that -- a translation (or more accurately, the 5th revision of the Tyndale NT). I like to jokingly refer to myself as "New King James Only," as I admire the marginal references to the NU and M texts (in the spirit of the KJV translators in giving accurate information about alternative or ambiguous translating options).

Thanks for writing the article. An honest look at the true "original KJV" would silence most KJVO views and statements. The Letter to the Translators is wonderfully written, and could precede any newer (good) translation or revision. It is definitely something worth promoting (it has been published by itself, as I have a copy, but I cannot find reference to it on Amazon). Along with facsimile pages, these are GREAT tools for teaching the truth about translations.

For the Shepherd and His sheep,
Kevin
Grateful husband of a Proverbs 31 wife, and the father of 15 blessings.
http://captive-thinker.blogspot.com

wdlowry's picture

I can't claim to speak for Dr. Lowry, but I have had the opportunity to have slightly-greater-than-passing acquaintance with him. Smile I trust I'm not misrepresenting him, but I think Bob pretty much nailed what he was getting at, at least in the context of this discussion. I imagine my dad was also making a broader generalization about how the rest of the world or at least Europe perceives Americans. We tend to see ourselves as always right and to think our way of doing things is always the best way. The KJVO issue is merely one example of that problem.

We've asked Germans before how they would describe Americans in one word and inevitably the word seems to be "proud." The same might be said about all sinful humans, but we Americans seem to take the lead.

B-Lowry's picture

Aaron, et al, the fact that most Americans speak only English and their attitudes towards all other languages, etc. was what I was referring to. And yes, more than once we heard the word "proud" or "arrogant" used of Americans while we were in Germany.

But that point was also a generalization - always dangerous and REALLY dangerous on a blog. Smile

dcbii's picture

EditorModerator

B-Lowry wrote:
Aaron, et al, the fact that most Americans speak only English and their attitudes towards all other languages, etc. was what I was referring to. And yes, more than once we heard the word "proud" or "arrogant" used of Americans while we were in Germany.

Yes, it's kind of sad. I pretty much WAS one of those before I married a European... I mean, of course everything is always better here, isn't it? Amazing how actual information shoots down a lot of your assumptions.

Quote:
But that point was also a generalization - always dangerous and REALLY dangerous on a blog. Smile

Well, that particular generalization is pretty easy since Americans generally make themselves easy targets in this area.

Originally, I was really only responding to the part of Bob's post that mentioned expecting people to speak English when they come here. I think that's a separate topic from being arrogant about thinking the whole world should just learn English, even when we are visiting *their* country.

Dave Barnhart

Bob Hayton's picture

Yes generalizations can be dangerous! And I probably over did my treatment too....

Dave (dcbii) said:

"So I do think your point about Americans' arrogance and English is well taken, though I think believing people should speak English in America is not really part of that problem."

I would actually agree, to a certain extent, with the last line. I was more describing America and how it might be perceived that this is not wise. However, while I think immigrants should seek to learn English, it often will take more than one generation. Sometimes our insistence on English smacks of racism, to a degree. It took the Swedes two or three generations before the Swedish speaking churches around here in Minneapolis, adopted English. I find that thought enlightening in the whole immigration debate. But that is definitely a topic for another day and another thread!

Thanks again,

Bob

Striving for the unity of the faith, for the glory of God ~ Eph. 4:3, 13; Rom. 15:5-7 I blog at Fundamentally Reformed. Follow me on Twitter.

Aaron Blumer's picture

EditorAdmin

There are other languages? When did that happen?

Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.

Kevin Subra's picture

Aaron,

Rest easy. The other languages are just fictitious (Klingon, Hobbitese). No need to worry. (worry-eth?)

For the Shepherd and His sheep,
Kevin
Grateful husband of a Proverbs 31 wife, and the father of 15 blessings.
http://captive-thinker.blogspot.com

RPittman's picture

B-Lowry wrote:
As you say, the Translators' Preface would be especially valuable to read and understand. (And the second word "understand" is the key one.) Merely reading and understanding the section on "An Answer to the Imputations of our Adversaries" would do the trick, I think.

And if they did not understand the older English, they could purchase the booklet from the ABS that contains the original preface in a facsimile, the same in Roman type and an updated "translation" of the preface.

Then again, perhaps the whole KJVO thing is a judgment on the arrogance of Americans.[emphasis added ]

Yeah, it applies to both sides of the issue. I find a certain smugness and arrogance by the critics of the KJVO position. There's a certain stereotyping of KJVO proponents so that ignorance and inaccuracies abound.

RPittman's picture

Kevin Subra wrote:
For years I've used the KJV's Letter to the Translators and excerpts from my 1611 KJV facsimile copy by Nelson (apparently now out of print: http://www.amazon.com/Holy-Bible-1611-James-Version/dp/0840700415/) as core tools to teach a proper view of the origins of the Bible, and to counter the KJVO views. The original 1611 has the marginal translation variations and included Apocrypha (!), which for some reason is not referenced in KJVO circles much.[emphasis added ]

(In "another life," I was a bookstore manager at FBBC. People would come in looking for the 1611, and I'd take them to the only copy we had - the Nelson facsimile. The puzzled looks were rewarding. ;>D)

I am for accurate, literal translations, of which the KJV is one (of the few), but it is just that -- a translation (or more accurately, the 5th revision of the Tyndale NT). I like to jokingly refer to myself as "New King James Only," as I admire the marginal references to the NU and M texts (in the spirit of the KJV translators in giving accurate information about alternative or ambiguous translating options).

Thanks for writing the article. An honest look at the true "original KJV" would silence most KJVO views and statements. The Letter to the Translators is wonderfully written, and could precede any newer (good) translation or revision. It is definitely something worth promoting (it has been published by itself, as I have a copy, but I cannot find reference to it on Amazon). Along with facsimile pages, these are GREAT tools for teaching the truth about translations.

Evidently, you're assuming that the KJV translators were conscious of their role in preservation. This point doesn't carry much weight if we view preservation as God working through the actions of men to preserve His word, which does not require the men's intended purpose or their awareness of their role. You implied argument may be cogent for you in your paradigm but others have reason to question and discount it. Sorry, but it simply doesn't clinch your case.

RPittman's picture

Douglas K. Kutilek wrote:
I am quite sure that the quickest “cure” for KJVOism is the close and careful study of the actual original KJV itself. I would challenge—even dare—everyone of KJVO persuasion to get this facsimile of the original KJV and study it cover to cover and margin to margin, spending a year and more in the process, and try to prove me wrong.
Many KJVOs proudly own and carefully peruse their facsimile of the 1611 KJV. I fail to see how this would affect their belief in a received text and a preserved Scripture.

Jeff Brown's picture

Since most discussions about KJV Only get polarized, and since Bill, David and I know each other well and share similar experiences, I am happy to give a little relief to the discussion by relativizing what they have said:

Ask an Irishman what he thinks of the Birtish; ask most Europeans their impression of the French; ask the Turkish, Dutch or African people what they think of the Germans; Ask the Germans what they think of the Chinese. They will all answer with "Arrogant" or "Proud." I have had South American Christians tell me that certain other South American Christians who come to Europe trying to change everything are "arrogant." Americans do not have a corner on pride. Pride often has to do with power, or the perception of power.

Germans have likewise told me to my face that Americans are stupid, and that the downfall of the US is imminent because Americans practice such poor nutrition. Whenever my freinds begin to wax eloquent this way, I respond, "Like McDonalds, you mean." "Yes, that too," they respond. "Well," I answer, "that's your problem. We all know that there is only one superpower in the world, the US, and that the Americans have been devouring McDonalds hamburgers for decades. Maybe people here are missing something!"

All that said, it is a bit of arrogance to propound to people of a different language that one of your English translations is better than anything they have ever produced. After all, how many American preachers had the entire Latin NT memorized, like Martin Luther, before they began translating?

Bill and David: die Ablenkung bitte verzeihen!

Jeff Brown

Aaron Blumer's picture

EditorAdmin

How'd we get to McDonalds? Oh yeah... KJVO & American arrogance.
FWIW, Jeff, tell your German friends that McD's sells so much stuff now you can actually eat "healthy" there now if you want to. I was visiting relatives in Illinois a couple weeks ago. We were out and about a good bit and grabbing fast food. It was so hot all I wanted to eat was "fruit smoothies" - with real fruit and yogurt, no less. Had a lot of them. I'm pretty sure they did me little more good than the Big Mac, but Mrs. Obama would have been proud.

Anyway, Roland, I've heard the counterargument before that the KJVO translators just didn't happen to be clued in on how perfect their work was and the fact that it represented the preserved word of God in English.
I'm not too worried about it. Their own words deflate that argument at a gut level. It is possible to see the translators' view of things and still hold to a "perfect KJV" view of some kind, but once you know how they viewed it, the sails are much lacking in wind.

What we actually have is gracious providential use of the KJV by God in mighty ways for generations. We should rejoice in that. I don't think we're improving the scenario by trying to make something "more" out of it.

Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.

Kevin Subra's picture

RPittman wrote:
Evidently, you're assuming that the KJV translators were conscious of their role in preservation. This point doesn't carry much weight if we view preservation as God working through the actions of men to preserve His word, which does not require the men's intended purpose or their awareness of their role. You implied argument may be cogent for you in your paradigm but others have reason to question and discount it. Sorry, but it simply doesn't clinch your case.

I've present no "case" or any argument whatsoever. I've only affirmed thoughts in the article by my own practices.

I am wholly against the KJVO movement, having been exposed to it early in my adult life, and working through it over several years in my own mind. When I first had the opportunity to preach in a small southern (small "s") Baptist church and referred to a Greek definition from the Strong's, I was gently chided that I was undermining the authority of the KJV...

I believe that the KJVO movement does precisely what it attempts to prevent by adding to the Word of God.

The Letter to the Translators simply counters a large number of arguments posited by KJVO proponents and arguments that I have been exposed to, all of which are profoundly ignorant if compared to the Letter. From memory only, the Letter to the Translators preemptively argues against many objections, a few of which are: (1) the need for a "new" translation when other good translations exist; (2) the desire to translate into understandable language so that even the vulgar man behind the plow can understand it; (3) the value of previously translated works (answering the question, "Is what we have had not the Word of God then?"), etc. The Letter to the Translators is profoundly opposed to the KJVO movement on many fronts.

The original with the Apocrypha and the marginal variants is a huge counter to many arguments of KJVO-ism today. The fact that proponents do not use the 1611 (which is largely unreadable by the average person today without much difficulty) is another brazen example of the shallowness of many KJVO people.

I am an ardent proponent of accurate, literal translations, of which there are few. To the best of pastors' ability, I believe they are required to study from the original languages before coming to conclusions. Translations are only best efforts of the translators, but they cannot replace original language study, which is essential to proper interpretation.

I am not sure what you are talking about in the KJV translators' role in preservation. No idea.

For the Shepherd and His sheep,
Kevin
Grateful husband of a Proverbs 31 wife, and the father of 15 blessings.
http://captive-thinker.blogspot.com

RPittman's picture

Kevin Subra wrote:
RPittman wrote:
Evidently, you're assuming that the KJV translators were conscious of their role in preservation. This point doesn't carry much weight if we view preservation as God working through the actions of men to preserve His word, which does not require the men's intended purpose or their awareness of their role. You implied argument may be cogent for you in your paradigm but others have reason to question and discount it. Sorry, but it simply doesn't clinch your case.

I've present no "case" or any argument whatsoever. I've only affirmed thoughts in the article by my own practices.

I am wholly against the KJVO movement, having been exposed to it early in my adult life, and working through it over several years in my own mind. When I first had the opportunity to preach in a small southern (small "s") Baptist church and referred to a Greek definition from the Strong's, I was gently chided that I was undermining the authority of the KJV...

I believe that the KJVO movement does precisely what it attempts to prevent by adding to the Word of God.

The Letter to the Translators simply counters a large number of arguments posited by KJVO proponents and arguments that I have been exposed to, all of which are profoundly ignorant if compared to the Letter. From memory only, the Letter to the Translators preemptively argues against many objections, a few of which are: (1) the need for a "new" translation when other good translations exist; (2) the desire to translate into understandable language so that even the vulgar man behind the plow can understand it; (3) the value of previously translated works (answering the question, "Is what we have had not the Word of God then?"), etc. The Letter to the Translators is profoundly opposed to the KJVO movement on many fronts.

The original with the Apocrypha and the marginal variants is a huge counter to many arguments of KJVO-ism today. The fact that proponents do not use the 1611 (which is largely unreadable by the average person today without much difficulty) is another brazen example of the shallowness of many KJVO people.

I am an ardent proponent of accurate, literal translations, of which there are few. To the best of pastors' ability, I believe they are required to study from the original languages before coming to conclusions. Translations are only best efforts of the translators, but they cannot replace original language study, which is essential to proper interpretation.

I am not sure what you are talking about in the KJV translators' role in preservation. No idea.

My point was simply that the argument from the translators' preface does not necessarily refute a KJVO position. What most KJV opponents fail to realize is that the KJVO is not a monolithic movement. KJVO describes people of differing views of what KJVO means and for differing reasons. Thus, for arguments against a KJVO position to be effective, one must accurately state the KJVO position and then refute it. For many in the KJVO camp, the issue is more about preservation and a received text rather than what you perceive as the standard KJVO position. Quite frankly, none of your arguments move me. It's more of the same old pabulum. I think too many KJVO opponents are listening to one another for their take on what KJVO is.

RPittman's picture

Aaron wrote:
Anyway, Roland, I've heard the counterargument before that the KJVO translators just didn't happen to be clued in on how perfect their work was and the fact that it represented the preserved word of God in English.
I'm not too worried about it. Their own words deflate that argument at a gut level. It is possible to see the translators' view of things and still hold to a "perfect KJV" view of some kind, but once you know how they viewed it, the sails are much lacking in wind.

What we actually have is gracious providential use of the KJV by God in mighty ways for generations. We should rejoice in that. I don't think we're improving the scenario by trying to make something "more" out of it.

Aaron, let's limit the debate to what I said and the single point that I addressed. Otherwise, you're morphing my views into things that I have never said or believed. My chief complaint about discussing the KJVO issue with you and others is that I make a simple argument confined to a single point and end up explaining and defending things that I never said or do not believe because folks assume that I hold this or that view. I'm very uncomfortable the way you use the word "perfect" regarding the KJV. What do you mean by this? Whereas I will say the KJV is the inspired Word of God, I do not use the word "perfect" in this context because it is so vague and undefined.

Furthermore, my observation was limited to the fact that the translators' preface does not necessarily refute KJVO arguments if the arguments are about divine preservation and the continuity of a received text. Did the translators have to be consciously aware of divine preserving influence if preservation is true? For sake of argument, were the inspired writers of Scriptural necessarily aware of divine inspiration at the moment of their writing? How do you know? Did they all say, "We are writing divinely inspired Scripture," or did we reason that? Either way, you must admit that the translators preface carries no more weight than any other men's opinions, modern or ancient. It does not carry the force of Scripture. Furthermore, the translators said exactly what we would expect them to say given their time and place in history.

RPittman's picture

Jeff wrote:
All that said, it is a bit of arrogance to propound to people of a different language that one of your English translations is better than anything they have ever produced.
I don't think this attitude and position is representative of most KJVOs. Most will say something like this: "The KJV is God's Word for the English-speaking people."

Kevin Subra's picture

RPittman wrote:
My point was simply that the argument from the translators' preface does not necessarily refute a KJVO position. What most KJV opponents fail to realize is that the KJVO is not a monolithic movement. KJVO describes people of differing views of what KJVO means and for differing reasons. Thus, for arguments against a KJVO position to be effective, one must accurately state the KJVO position and then refute it. For many in the KJVO camp, the issue is more about preservation and a received text rather than what you perceive as the standard KJVO position. Quite frankly, none of your arguments move me. It's more of the same old pabulum. I think too many KJVO opponents are listening to one another for their take on what KJVO is.

I've made no attempt to argue. I have simply stated, briefly, a few of my own views which relate directly to the posting. The nature of this posting does not appear to attempt to be the end all for the KJVO controversy.

I do believe that the Letter to the Translators does counter and refute many of the KJVO arguments (that I have heard first hand), as does an examination the original 1611 itself. It may not address views of the KJVO believers in their entirety. It most certainly does address a large number.

I also consider the arguments of the Received Text (or the Majority Text) at a different level than the preservation arguments of the KJV, and have not commented on this at all, as it is outside the scope of the brief posting about a particular piece of evidence regarding the KJVO discussion.

I understand that men can work under the direction without being aware of it. I also understand that men can overstate what the Word does say, and create new "fundamentals" which did not historically exist.

I am further aware that categorizing comments as "the same old pabulum" does not consist of evidence or argument itself, and really is a comment that serves no beneficial purpose in this short discussion.

I have not listened to any KJVO opponents, nor have I read their books. I have come up through the ranks of them as a young adult and drawn my own conclusions from my own study and observations, in part of which was my own discovery of the Letter to the Translators.

I do believe that the KJVO arguments at all levels have been used to create needless division in the body of Christ, and they have separated well-intended people (and thus weakened the cause of Christ), and they have distracted the Church from making of disciples to the arguing over something that simply is not clearly stated Scripture.

Feel free not to be moved. I make no effort to do so.

For the Shepherd and His sheep,
Kevin
Grateful husband of a Proverbs 31 wife, and the father of 15 blessings.
http://captive-thinker.blogspot.com

Kevin Subra's picture

RPittman wrote:
Furthermore, my observation was limited to the fact that the translators' preface does not necessarily refute KJVO arguments if the arguments are about divine preservation and the continuity of a received text. Did the translators have to be consciously aware of divine preserving influence if preservation is true? For sake of argument, were the inspired writers of Scriptural necessarily aware of divine inspiration at the moment of their writing? How do you know? Did they all say, "We are writing divinely inspired Scripture," or did we reason that? Either way, you must admit that the translators preface carries no more weight than any other men's opinions, modern or ancient. It does not carry the force of Scripture. Furthermore, the translators said exactly what we would expect them to say given their time and place in history.

This would equally apply to the words and views of those holding the KJVO only positions. The Word never says that the KJV is/will be the word of God for the English speaking people, either implied or explicitly stated. That, in my opinion, results in adding to the Word of God that they attempt to defend.

For the Shepherd and His sheep,
Kevin
Grateful husband of a Proverbs 31 wife, and the father of 15 blessings.
http://captive-thinker.blogspot.com

Susan R's picture

EditorModerator

How about in the same sense that God described His creation as 'good'? Was it perfect? It was exactly what He wanted it to be, wasn't it? Just a thought.

RPittman's picture

Kevin wrote:
This would equally apply to the words and views of those holding the KJVO only positions. The Word never says that the KJV is/will be the word of God for the English speaking people, either implied or explicitly stated. That, in my opinion, results in adding to the Word of God that they attempt to defend.
By the same standard, Scripture does not specify the books of the canon but we have no problem is believing the canon is complete. It is NOT adding to God's Word to believe the KJV is God's Word for English-speaking people if the proponents do not attribute it to Scripture, which is not necessary for their argument. Kevin, you're missing a piece of your logic puzzle.

RPittman's picture

Susan R wrote:
How about in the same sense that God described His creation as 'good'? Was it perfect? It was exactly what He wanted it to be, wasn't it? Just a thought.

Yeah, it's a good thought but I don't think most are thinking of "perfect" in this way.

RPittman's picture

Kevin wrote:
I've made no attempt to argue. I have simply stated, briefly, a few of my own views which relate directly to the posting. The nature of this posting does not appear to attempt to be the end all for the KJVO controversy.
This is the second time that you've denying engaging in argument. What's so important about this that you argue that you "made no attempt to argue"? If you post a response either in support or contrary to another posted item, then you are supporting one side or the other and engaging in argument.
Quote:
I have not listened to any KJVO opponents, nor have I read their books. I have come up through the ranks of them as a young adult and drawn my own conclusions from my own study and observations, in part of which was my own discovery of the Letter to the Translators.
One doesn't form opinions in a vacuum. I don't find your ideas necessarily original. It's basically the usual response of anti-KJVOs. I dare say that you've heard them other places. So, what are you trying to prove? The ideas are your own?
Quote:
I do believe that the KJVO arguments at all levels have been used to create needless division in the body of Christ, and they have separated well-intended people (and thus weakened the cause of Christ), and they have distracted the Church from making of disciples to the arguing over something that simply is not clearly stated Scripture.
Oh, this old shoe again! The MVs have had their fair share of creating the division by blasting the KJVO position and ridiculing its proponents. The MVs have needlessly divided many churches when the enlightened few set out change everyone else. Agitating for change and pushing for the MVs has precipitated much of the division. Of course, there are a few KJVO extremists (e.g. Peter Ruckman et. al.) who are abrasive and glory in creating controversy but you cannot judge everyone by them.

Anyway, Kevin, I'm glad that you learned a new vocab word from this--pabulum. LOL Smile

Jeff Brown's picture

So Roland, do you live here in Europe?

Jeff Brown

Pages

Help keep SI’s server humming. A few bucks makes a difference.