King James-Only Hysterics Refuted

I

illinoisguy

Well-known member
Elect
Joined
Jan 1, 2019
Messages
1,378
Reaction score
608
Points
113
protestia.com

Op-Ed: Forgotten Facts About the 1611 King James Version (KJV) Disproves KJVO Hysterics

This article is a Twitter thread by Josh Barzon, author of The Forgotten Preface, and...
protestia.com protestia.com

Some of the points in this article: the 1611 KJV translators accepted even imperfect translations such as the Septuagint as the Word of God.

They included variant readings in the margins, and recognized the findings of textual criticism.

They accepted as valid the scholarship of persons who held to theological errors, such as Origen and Jerome. (The article could have mentioned that KJVOs accept the scholarship of Erasmus, a Roman Catholic, and Benjamin Wilkinson, a Seventh Day Adventist, as valid).

They included the Apocrypha in the 1611 edition of the KJV, and cited an apocryphal book in the margin of Hebrews 11:35. (I checked this out in my own copy of the 1611 KJV, and it's true).
 
Do we have any posters here who are KJVO?
I know we did in the old days but not sure about now.
 
Tarheel Baptist said:
Do we have any posters here who are KJVO?
I know we did in the old days but not sure about now.
Click to expand...
Bob Jones VI said:
Some of the Hyles defenders who come here once a year probably are.
Click to expand...
it;s been a really long time but i do remember some posters from the past who were adamantly king james only... .. and not just any king james but it had to the 1611 king james like the one mentioned in the o.p... ....... which the people on the other side adamantly opposed to anything king james claimed nobody in the modern age could read........ so i ordered a copy of one and discovered i could read it just fine..... ... contrary to what some seemd to believe - reading it did not cause me to become a king james onlyist... nor did it make me shun the king james and consider it obsolete or not authentic... i didn;t find contradictions in it and never saw the big deal or the reason for the controversy....
 
aleshanee said:
it;s been a really long time but i do remember some posters from the past who were adamantly king james only... .. and not just any king james but it had to the 1611 king james like the one mentioned in the o.p... ....... which the people on the other side adamantly opposed to anything king james claimed nobody in the modern age could read........ so i ordered a copy of one and discovered i could read it just fine..... ... contrary to what some seemd to believe - reading it did not cause me to become a king james onlyist... nor did it make me shun the king james and consider it obsolete or not authentic... i didn;t find contradictions in it and never saw the big deal or the reason for the controversy....
Click to expand...
Would really recommend that anyone who uses the Kjv should also use the Webster dictionary, as the Kjv words and terms chosen by the 1611 translators has changed in meanings over past 400 + years, and the online Webster work defines to us what they met back in 1611, so would not be giving false understandings to someone reading it as we would in todays English
 
JesusFan said:
Would really recommend that anyone who uses the Kjv should also use the Webster dictionary, as the Kjv words and terms chosen by the 1611 translators has changed in meanings over past 400 + years, and the online Webster work defines to us what they met back in 1611, so would not be giving false understandings to someone reading it as we would in todays English
Click to expand...
I have a Websters 1828 dictionary that I have found invaluable and have had since way back when I was staunch KJVO!

Actually, I believe a good Greek lexicon or interlinear study bible is an even better resource but such would be anathema to the KJVO crowd that I once ran with!
 
Baptist Renegade said:
I have a Websters 1828 dictionary that I have found invaluable and have had since way back when I was staunch KJVO!

Actually, I believe a good Greek lexicon or interlinear study bible is an even better resource but such would be anathema to the KJVO crowd that I once ran with!
Click to expand...
You are correct that they should actually be using a Greek lexicon or Interlinear, but since KJVO will not choice either of those, the 1828 Webster Dictionary can help them to understand what over 1000 words used by 1611 translators meant at time of the translation, and not what meant as used today
 
JesusFan said:
You are correct that they should actually be using a Greek lexicon or Interlinear, but since KJVO will not choice either of those, the 1828 Webster Dictionary can help them to understand what over 1000 words used by 1611 translators meant at time of the translation, and not what meant as used today
Click to expand...
The big issue with an 1828 dictionary is that you can "cherry pick" the definitions and thus manipulate the text if you fail to use the correct definition which fits the context. Bible Colleges in the KJVO world see the study of Hebrew and Greek as being little more than an "exercise in character building" that they quickly set aside once they pass and receive the necessary credits.
 
Baptist Renegade said:
The big issue with an 1828 dictionary is that you can "cherry pick" the definitions and thus manipulate the text if you fail to use the correct definition which fits the context.
Click to expand...

Also, Webster's purpose was to develop an American dialect of English distinct from British English, and he was doing so 200 years after the publication of the AV. The Webster dictionary is useful, but I question it being the be-all and end-all when it comes to understanding the Bible.

By comparison, there's Robert Cawdrey's A Table Alphabeticall of Hard Usual English Words. Published in 1604 in London, it's actually contemporaenous with the translation of the KJV. This is the first attempt at a proper English dictionary. It's short (only 2,543 words) and more like a glorified thesaurus than a dictionary. But Cawdrey's intent was to help people understand the more uncommon or difficult words they might come across in print, especially the English Bible.
 
JesusFan said:
You are correct that they should actually be using a Greek lexicon or Interlinear, but since KJVO will not choice either of those, the 1828 Webster Dictionary can help them to understand what over 1000 words used by 1611 translators meant at time of the translation, and not what meant as used today
Click to expand...
They have Strong's definitions.
 
"Do we have any posters here who are KJVO?"


I'm not a KJVO only person in the sense of truth or inspiration but I definitely prefer it for its beauty. Doest thou understandeth that which I sayeth?
 
Last edited:
Gringo said:
"Do we have any posters here who are KJVO?"


I'm not a KJVO only person in the sense of truth or inspiration but I definitely prefer it for its beauty. Doest thou understandeth that which I sayeth?
Click to expand...
You could be a King James preferred
 
JesusFan said:
You could be a King James preferred
Click to expand...
I still prefer the KJV for numerous reasons. Main reason being is that it is the one I have been using for the past 40 or so years.

Sometimes the best way to deal with a passage that seems difficult in the KJV is to pick up my ESV and say "Oh, that is what they are trying to say here!" :cool:
I can usually go right back to the King James and understand "yep, that's what they said!" and will then use the King James in my teaching with the text properly explained. I bet I could even pull a "fast one" on a KJVO congregation and they wouldn't be the wiser!:ROFLMAO:
 
Baptist Renegade said:
I still prefer the KJV for numerous reasons. Main reason being is that it is the one I have been using for the past 40 or so years.

Sometimes the best way to deal with a passage that seems difficult in the KJV is to pick up my ESV and say "Oh, that is what they are trying to say here!" :cool:
I can usually go right back to the King James and understand "yep, that's what they said!" and will then use the King James in my teaching with the text properly explained. I bet I could even pull a "fast one" on a KJVO congregation and they wouldn't be the wiser!:ROFLMAO:
Click to expand...
@voicecrying told me about the ESV Reader's Bible. I found one and ordered it. I love it. Single column print and no distracting notes. I immediately began reading through the Gospels and have seen a harmony of their accounts like I knew of but had never seen before. I'm almost done with Luke.
 
abcaines said:
@voicecrying told me about the ESV Reader's Bible. I found one and ordered it. I love it. Single column print and no distracting notes. I immediately began reading through the Gospels and have seen a harmony of their accounts like I knew of but had never seen before. I'm almost done with Luke.
Click to expand...
Nice for simple reading thru the bible
 
JesusFan said:
agrred for modern english, but the Websters is used for seeing English as was used at time of the 1611 Kjv
Click to expand...
The full version of Oxfords shows historical usage/meanings along with literature concurrent with the 1611 kjv
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top