KJVOs and Other versions from the TR

abcaines

abcaines

Well-known member
Staff member
Doctor
Elect
Joined
Jan 22, 2022
Messages
3,004
Reaction score
1,893
Points
113
Location
Clarkston WA
From what I am seeing on this forum, the biggest thing KJVOs hang their hats on is the Textus Receptus. OK, fine. There are over a dozen versions translated from the TR which were published after the first KJV edition. Are any of them esteemed as greatly because of their common source?

Also... there appears to be 9 editions of the KJV from 1611 through 1850. KJVOs like to throw around the 1611 date. Is that the only perfectly preserved edition or are the others equally preserved?
 
abcaines said:
From what I am seeing on this forum, the biggest thing KJVOs hang their hats on is the Textus Receptus. OK, fine. There are over a dozen versions translated from the TR which were published after the first KJV edition. Are any of them esteemed as greatly because of their common source?

Also... there appears to be 9 editions of the KJV from 1611 through 1850. KJVOs like to throw around the 1611 date. Is that the only perfectly preserved edition or are the others equally preserved?
Click to expand...
I mainly use the KJV and in my Seminary papers, I cite the King James almost exclusively and in the bibliography, I cite the publisher as UK: Cambridge University Press, Cum Privilegio 1769. I do this as a matter of principle to point out that #1, there is a perpetual "Crown Copyright" (KJV is not public domain), and #2, there have been revisions since 1611 and the "Gold Standard" editions are Cambridge (1769) and Oxford (1762). My main Bible is a Cambridge Wide Margin so I use the Cambridge reference.

Not that my Seminary is KJVO or anything but just in case someone there happens to lean that direction...
 
Which of the 9 KJV editions is "The One" that was divinely preserved, according to KJVOs? Steve Van Nattan of the Blessed Quietness web site says: "Editor's note- Steve Van Nattan: It is important to learn if your pastor or Bible teacher believes the King James Bible is as miraculously preserved in 1611 in English as it was inspired when the Holy Ghost gave it to the New Testament writers. Anyone who does not believe in miraculous preservation of the King James Bible is a hireling and should be avoided and marked as heretic."

However, I am not aware of any KJVOs today who use that 1611 edition, and some KJVOs now state that they follow the 1611KJV as preserved in the 1769 edition. As this article points out, there are significant differences in wording between the 1611 and 1769 editions.

More Changes Between the 1611 and the 1769 Editions of the KJV | A Salted Faith

The following is a sequel of sorts to my previous post as I wanted to share even more variations between the original KJV and the current edition. Again, my question to KJV-Onlyists is this: How do...
www.rickbeckman.org

Since I am not KJVO, I will leave it to the KJVOs to explain why they say the 1611 KJV was inspired and preserved, and yet they use a 1769 edition with different wording.
 
illinoisguy said:
Which of the 9 KJV editions is "The One" that was divinely preserved, according to KJVOs? Steve Van Nattan of the Blessed Quietness web site says: "Editor's note- Steve Van Nattan: It is important to learn if your pastor or Bible teacher believes the King James Bible is as miraculously preserved in 1611 in English as it was inspired when the Holy Ghost gave it to the New Testament writers. Anyone who does not believe in miraculous preservation of the King James Bible is a hireling and should be avoided and marked as heretic."

However, I am not aware of any KJVOs today who use that 1611 edition, and some KJVOs now state that they follow the 1611KJV as preserved in the 1769 edition. As this article points out, there are significant differences in wording between the 1611 and 1769 editions.

More Changes Between the 1611 and the 1769 Editions of the KJV | A Salted Faith

The following is a sequel of sorts to my previous post as I wanted to share even more variations between the original KJV and the current edition. Again, my question to KJV-Onlyists is this: How do...
www.rickbeckman.org

Since I am not KJVO, I will leave it to the KJVOs to explain why they say the 1611 KJV was inspired and preserved, and yet they use a 1769 edition with different wording.
Click to expand...
Not all use the AV1769 (Cambridge Edition). Some use the AV1762 (Oxford Edition). Others are content to use some lesser "Thomas Nelson" Bible they may have purchased at their local Wal Mart. I have an old Cambridge Bible that has seen better days but to replace it is quite expensive so the Bibles I carry around are the lesser "Thomas Nelson" variety and I can cope with the "leaven" that creeps in every now and then! ;)

Steve Van Nattan does not agree with anybody! Much of the time, he does not agree with himself!
 
Baptist Renegade said:
Not all use the AV1769 (Cambridge Edition). Some use the AV1762 (Oxford Edition). Others are content to use some lesser "Thomas Nelson" Bible they may have purchased at their local Wal Mart. I have an old Cambridge Bible that has seen better days but to replace it is quite expensive so the Bibles I carry around are the lesser "Thomas Nelson" variety and I can cope with the "leaven" that creeps in every now and then! ;)

Steve Van Nattan does not agree with anybody! Much of the time, he does not agree with himself!
Click to expand...
I, too, like the old Oxford Edition. I've got one of those but used my Thompson Chain reference for over 35 years. I've got an old Scofield Bible as well, that I was given when I was 11. It's seen much better days. I'd LOVE to see some idiot using the 1611 KJV as they claim they do!
 
AverageJoe said:
I, too, like the old Oxford Edition. I've got one of those but used my Thompson Chain reference for over 35 years. I've got an old Scofield Bible as well, that I was given when I was 11. It's seen much better days. I'd LOVE to see some idiot using the 1611 KJV as they claim they do!
Click to expand...
I have seen some KJVO types walking around with photocopy editions of the 1611 Bible. Very hard to read with the spelling and font type used but hey, at leaft they are confiftente! :cool:
 
abcaines said:
Not sure it was this exact one but during my semester at The Master's College, I got my hands on a KJV that was printed in modern paragraph format. It helped me greatly in my reading assignments, especially for my OT Survey class.
Click to expand...
1873?
I also appreciated that format.
This new one has the Apocrypha included, as an option.
 
prophet said:
1873?
I also appreciated that format.
This new one has the Apocrypha included, as an option.
Click to expand...
At the time, it was all I could do to keep up with all of my reading assignments. This Baptist can't imagine adding the Apocrypha to that load! 🤯
 
abcaines said:
From what I am seeing on this forum, the biggest thing KJVOs hang their hats on is the Textus Receptus. OK, fine. There are over a dozen versions translated from the TR which were published after the first KJV edition. Are any of them esteemed as greatly because of their common source?
Click to expand...
Wouldn't count on it. The NKJV is translated from the TR, and a lot of KJV clowns single it out for special vituperation. It's not the source; it's the translation. The TR is the bait in their bait-and-switch.
 
This article explains how to distinguish between genuine TR-onlies, and KJV-onlies masquerading as TR-onlies. TR-onlies will admit that 2 Peter 1:1, based on the TR, is translated better in the NKJV than in the KJV.

carm.org

King James Only or Textus Receptus Only: What's the difference?

Some people do not hold to King James Onlyism per se but rather hold to the primacy of the text from which the TR was translated.
carm.org carm.org
 
illinoisguy said:
Anyone who does not believe in miraculous preservation of the King James Bible is a hireling and should be avoided and marked as heretic.
Click to expand...
"Blessed Quietness" is formerly known as "Balaam's Ass," and van Nattan is definitely talking out of his.

If not believing in the "miraculous preservation" of the KJV makes you a heretic, then I've been right all along that KJV-onlyism is a false gospel. It's rare to see the monkey-boys admit it out loud, though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top