Where did King James only originate?

[John146]

Therefore, we should toss the KJV, because it was not the first complete English edition, and brought about confusion.

Next time, think through your arguments before you post them.

Nice try, the KJV was the first pure, holy completed word of God in English.

 

[John146]

Therefore, we should toss the KJV, because it was not the first complete English edition, and brought about confusion.

Next time, think through your arguments before you post them.

1. Tyndale’s translation (1525)
2. The Coverdale Bible (1535)
3. The Matthews Bible (1537)
4. The Great Bible (1539)
5. The Geneva Bible (1560)
6. The Bishops Bible (1568)
7. The Holy Bible (1611) (Also called the Authorized Version and later King James Version)

The seventh translation would be the “preserved” words of God. It is interesting to note that in creation (Genesis 1) six times God said “it was good”. But the seventh time He said “it was very good”.

 

[Dino246]

As promised...

A (very brief) history of the Textus Receptus: (with thanks to Dr. James White and his The King James Only Controversy)

Desiderius Erasmus published the first printed Greek edition of the New Testament in 1516. He translated it from a handful of manuscripts that were available to him at the time. In 1519 Erasmus' second edition was printed, followed by further editions followed in 1522, 1527, and 1535. Incidentally, none of the manuscripts available to Erasmus had the complete text of Revelation.

Robert Estienne (aka Stephanus) took Erasmus' work further, adding marginal notes taken from another printed work. He printed four editions, the third of which (1550) "was very popular in England" (p. 105).

Theodore Beza printed nine editions of the NT in Greek, adding further to the collection of variant readings. Notably, he made changes to the text that are not supported by manuscript evidence at all.

The term "Textus Receptus" itself was not applied to this family of texts until well after the publication of the KJV, when in 1633 the Elzevir brothers released their own second edition. The name stuck, though as White notes, "Even the standard Textus Receptus use today... is not identical to Erasmus, Stephanus, or Beza but is instead an 'eclectic' text that draws from various sources." (p. 106).

 

[Dino246]

1. Tyndale’s translation (1525)
2. The Coverdale Bible (1535)
3. The Matthews Bible (1537)
4. The Great Bible (1539)
5. The Geneva Bible (1560)
6. The Bishops Bible (1568)
7. The Holy Bible (1611) (Also called the Authorized Version and later King James Version)

The seventh translation would be the “preserved” words of God. It is interesting to note that in creation (Genesis 1) six times God said “it was good”. But the seventh time He said “it was very good”.

You are overlooking the fact that Tyndale's was not the first English version. That credit goes to Wycliffe.

You are also overlooking the fact that the verse you infer (Psalm 12:7) does not say that God will preserve His words. It says that He will preserve (either His words or His people) "from this generation".

 

[justbyfaith]

Therefore, we should toss the KJV, because it was not the first complete English edition, and brought about confusion.

Next time, think through your arguments before you post them.

I believe that what he said here answers your contention:

...In respect of the features which specially make a translation of the Scriptures precious to the common reader, the Authorised Version of the English Bible is a very great improvement on all preceding versions. The language is clearer and choicer, more impressive and more capable of making itself remembered, and the translation more faithful and accurate than any that went before. The improvement is everywhere perceptible to the judgment and to the ear. ..

 

[justbyfaith]

1. Tyndale’s translation (1525)
2. The Coverdale Bible (1535)
3. The Matthews Bible (1537)
4. The Great Bible (1539)
5. The Geneva Bible (1560)
6. The Bishops Bible (1568)
7. The Holy Bible (1611) (Also called the Authorized Version and later King James Version)

The seventh translation would be the “preserved” words of God. It is interesting to note that in creation (Genesis 1) six times God said “it was good”. But the seventh time He said “it was very good”.

Psa 12:6, The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.

 

[justbyfaith]

Incidentally, none of the manuscripts available to Erasmus had the complete text of Revelation.

When did the church finally obtain the texts that contained the entire book of Revelation?

 

[Dino246]

I believe that what he said here answers your contention:

He claimed, in essence, that multiple versions lead to confusion, but because the KJV was not the first English version, he is refuting himself. His response does nothing to answer my contention, because my contention is based on logic, not opinions.

 

[justbyfaith]

He claimed, in essence, that multiple versions lead to confusion, but because the KJV was not the first English version, he is refuting himself. His response does nothing to answer my contention, because my contention is based on logic, not opinions.

His response does answer your contention as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Katia]

Awhile back I posted that KJV onlyism originated with the Seventh-day Adventist Benjamin G. Wilkinson and his book Our Authorized Bible Vindicated (1930). I recall at least one objection to this but as I remember it wasn't presented very well.

So my question is: Where exactly does KJV onlyism originate if not from Wilkinson? If you are KJV only surely you know. Please keep responses short and direct; it doesn't require an essay, just sources and why this or that person is considered the founder of KJV onlyism.

I don't insist that anyone use the KJV but it is what I study. In the early 70's I used about a half dozen versions and it just became too confusing for me. Please don't ask me to recall now but there are several things in the KJV that weren't in some other versions. Matt 27:53 is a good example of one.

 

[Dino246]

His response does answer your contention as far as I'm concerned.

You are welcome to your opinion.

 

[justbyfaith]

You are welcome to your opinion.

Thank you, how gracious of you...

 

[Nehemiah6]

Therefore, we should toss the KJV, because it was not the first complete English edition, and brought about confusion.

This is just an idiotic response to what has been posted. All English translations before the KJB were in the same stream (other than the Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible and Wycliffe's, which were based on Jerome's Latin Vulgate). So there was absolutely no confusion among Protestants.

 

[oyster67]

Awhile back I posted that KJV onlyism originated with the Seventh-day Adventist Benjamin G. Wilkinson and his book Our Authorized Bible Vindicated (1930).

Never heard of such stuff. You speak of it as if it is a denominational distinctive??????? I just like the way it sounds and feels. It's what I grew up with and feel secure with. Why fix something that I don't feel is broken? I hope you haven't burnt out too many braincells on this non-issue, beloved brother.

 

[Cabrillo]

Never heard of such stuff. You speak of it as if it is a denominational distinctive??????? I just like the way it sounds and feels. It's what I grew up with and feel secure with. Why fix something that I don't feel is broken? I hope you haven't burnt out too many braincells on this non-issue, beloved brother.

Has anybody identified that KJV only originated with King James?

In 1604, England’s King James I authorized a new translation of the Bible aimed at settling some thorny religious differences in his kingdom—and solidifying his own power.
But in seeking to prove his own supremacy, King James ended up democratizing the Bible instead. Thanks to emerging printing technology, the new translation brought the Bible out of the church’s sole control and directly into the hands of more people than ever before, including the Protestant reformers who settled England’s North American colonies in the 17th century.

CO History.com

 

[fredoheaven]

Didn't know if this had been covered yet;

The Greek word for “church” is ekklesia. It’s derived of two words: ek which means “out of” and kaleō which means “to call”. So, ekklesia, a noun, literally means “those called out”.

Here are some examples of the word “church” in other languages:
Spanish: iglesia
Latin: ecclesia
French: eglise
Greek: ekklesia

See how similar they are to the original Greek word?
Let’s look at the English version.

English: church

*record scratch*

What’s going on?

Why is ekklesia replaced by a word that has no structural or phonetic similarities to the original Greek word?

You can blame the original translators of the King James Version of the Bible. They were influenced by the traditions of their day. In their day, the building where the people of God met was called a “church”. This word was derived from the Germanic word kirche (there’s a whole story here that probably involves sun-goddess worship and maybe anti-Semitism but that’s another post). The translators simply used what was already familiar to the people. This is just one example of how they were influenced by the traditions of their times.

Today, we call buildings by a name God never intended: churches. And this adds confusion to the people of God.
Some blame lies with the translators of the KJV.

You are wrong on two points.

1. Church is a correct English translation for the Greek Ekklesia. Phonetic similarities have no bearing since you are talking about transliteration which is a big difference.

2. Church is the same as the French ‘eglise”. No matter how you bend it, the French is the same meaning in English. Likewise, of the Latin ecclesia and Spanish “Yglesia.

 

[John146]

As promised...

A (very brief) history of the Textus Receptus: (with thanks to Dr. James White and his The King James Only Controversy)

Desiderius Erasmus published the first printed Greek edition of the New Testament in 1516. He translated it from a handful of manuscripts that were available to him at the time. In 1519 Erasmus' second edition was printed, followed by further editions followed in 1522, 1527, and 1535. Incidentally, none of the manuscripts available to Erasmus had the complete text of Revelation.

Robert Estienne (aka Stephanus) took Erasmus' work further, adding marginal notes taken from another printed work. He printed four editions, the third of which (1550) "was very popular in England" (p. 105).

Theodore Beza printed nine editions of the NT in Greek, adding further to the collection of variant readings. Notably, he made changes to the text that are not supported by manuscript evidence at all.

The term "Textus Receptus" itself was not applied to this family of texts until well after the publication of the KJV, when in 1633 the Elzevir brothers released their own second edition. The name stuck, though as White notes, "Even the standard Textus Receptus use today... is not identical to Erasmus, Stephanus, or Beza but is instead an 'eclectic' text that draws from various sources." (p. 106).

Dr. James White....enough said.

 

[John146]

You are wrong on two points.

1. Church is a correct English translation for the Greek Ekklesia. Phonetic similarities have no bearing since you are talking about transliteration which is a big difference.

2. Church is the same as the French ‘eglise”. No matter how you bend it, the French is the same meaning in English. Likewise, of the Latin ecclesia and Spanish “Yglesia.

Furthermore, the context of the word church in the KJV is correct. That's what matters. The usage is correct. It does not matter how man currently uses the word. We never change God's word to fit the current narrative of the times.

 

[ResidentAlien]

You are overlooking the fact that Tyndale's was not the first English version. That credit goes to Wycliffe.

You are also overlooking the fact that the verse you infer (Psalm 12:7) does not say that God will preserve His words. It says that He will preserve (either His words or His people) "from this generation".

I believe Wycliffe's was a translation of the Latin Vulgate. Tyndale's was the first translated into English from the original Greek.

Psalm 12:7 isn't a very good verse to base the preservation of God's word upon. The Septuagint says: "Thou, O Lord, shalt keep us, and shalt preserve us, from this generation, and for ever."

But of course the KJV says "them," referring to His words; and the KJV is always right, so guess which one wins. The version all the New Testament writers quoted from (Septuagint) must not have been inspired.

But I do believe God has preserved His word.

 

[ResidentAlien]

Has anybody identified that KJV only originated with King James?

In 1604, England’s King James I authorized a new translation of the Bible aimed at settling some thorny religious differences in his kingdom—and solidifying his own power.
But in seeking to prove his own supremacy, King James ended up democratizing the Bible instead. Thanks to emerging printing technology, the new translation brought the Bible out of the church’s sole control and directly into the hands of more people than ever before, including the Protestant reformers who settled England’s North American colonies in the 17th century.

CO History.com

There were two authorized version before the KJV—the Great Bible and the Bishop's Bible. Does the head of the Anglican church "authorizing" something make it infallible? If that were the case, the Great Bible wouldn't have needed to be replaced.