I recently noticed that the Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism chose to address the writings of an influential King James Only proponent: Thomas Holland. Holland represents the best kind of King James Onlyism, from what I have heard of him. He is honest and deals with the evidence at hand – or at least tries to. At the end of the day, he sticks with his guiding principles and faith in the perfect preservation of all of God’s words, no matter what the evidence. But his writing style is more helpful than many of the KJV proponents I have read.

The journal article focuses on Holland’s explanation of the last six verses of Revelation and his valiant attempt to explain away the consensus that Erasmus translated these verses from the Latin into Greek (for his N.T. edition), since he had no Greek manuscripts that covered that portion of Revelation.

From Bob Hayton via Re-Fundamentals

Bill Combs at Theologically Driven begins a series of posts on the KJVO movement. I think it will be interesting to follow.

In 1870 the Church of England decided to embark on a new revision of the KJV. While the KJV NT was translated from the TR, this new revision closely followed the Greek NT that was being prepared by B. F. Westcott and F. J. A. Hort. The NT of the Revised Version was, as I noted, published in England on May 17, 1881. The Revised Version (RV) differed from the KJV in hundreds of places where the RV followed the newer Greek text. There was immediate opposition to the RV and this newer Greek text on which it was based. The chief opponent of the textual changes was John William Burgon, Dean of Chichester. He reviewed the RV in a series of articles in the Quarterly Review from 1881 and 1882, which were then published in 1883 under the title The Revision Revised. It is primarily with the writings of Burgon that the KJV-only movement finds its origins.

I will trace the development of the movement in a future post.

via » Beginning of KJV-Only Movement.

Image via Wikipedia

A happy 400th anniversary to the beloved King James.

No.  Not the king, himself.  The King James Version of the Bible.

Image via Wikipedia

Yesterday I posted a bit of an article from USA Today about the KJV and its popularity.  Daniel commented about one issue that was somewhat odd.  Better Bibles Blog has now posted on the issue, also.

What are your thoughts?

 

more than half of all American adults (62 percent) own a KJV Bible. … A full 82 percent of Americans who read the Bible at least once a month own a KJV.

But USA Today has changed “own a KJV” to state that that is the version that the 82% “prefer” and “rely on”. The fallacy is clear when one reads on in the press release to find out that

Americans who read the Bible at least once a month own an average of 5.8 Bibles.

Very likely for most people these multiple Bibles are in various versions. So it is presumptuous and indeed quite false to suggest that 82% of those Americans prefer or rely on just one version. Among my collection of several different versions, I own a KJV which was my mother’s confirmation present, and another which I had at school, but I rarely read either. Kenny’s story is similar, and so very likely is that of huge numbers of Christians among “the English-speaking masses worldwide”, and even of quite a few in the USA.

I wouldn’t expect anything better from USA Today

via USA Today: Has the Geneva Bible made a huge comeback? « Better Bibles Blog.

Related articles

• America’s Favorite Version. (greatriversofhope.wordpress.com)
• Dates of Bible Translations (raymondjclements.wordpress.com)
• ‘Telling Tales’: Discussing the KJV Bible on its 400th Anniversary (zwingliusredivivus.wordpress.com)

Image via Wikipedia

Although there are two dozen English-language Bibles in many contemporary translations, the King James Version reigns even more supreme among those who actually read their Bibles: 82% of those who read the Good Book at least once a month rely on the translation that first brought the Scripture to the English-speaking masses worldwide.

Age makes a difference. Seventy-six percent of Bible owners 55 and older have a King James, compared with 56% of those under 35, according to the survey of 1,004 adults, conducted March 2-6.

via Bible readers prefer King James version – USATODAY.com.

Related articles

• What are the contributions of the King James Version of the Bible towards the development of the English language (wiki.answers.com)
• Should We Use The King James Version of the Bible? (raymondjclements.wordpress.com)
• How does the esv bible compare to the new american bible (wiki.answers.com)

Image via Wikipedia

Why does the KJV endure as a classic and an excellent translation?

Not everyone prefers a God who talks like a pal or a guidance counselor. Even some of us who are nonbelievers want a God who speaketh like — well, God. The great achievement of the King James translators is to have arrived at a language that is both ordinary and heightened, that rings in the ear and lingers in the mind. And that all 54 of them were able to agree on every phrase, every comma, without sounding as gassy and evasive as the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, is little short of amazing, in itself proof of something like divine inspiration.

via Why the King James Bible Endures – NYTimes.com.

Related articles

• Why the King James Bible Endures (nytimes.com)
• Is the King James Bible the true Bible (wiki.answers.com)

The error of the King James Only movement is opposite but equal to the error of the new evangelicalism. The new evangelicals wanted to remove the fundamentals (i.e., the gospel) as the boundary of Christian fellowship. The King James Only movement wishes to add to the fundamentals (i.e., the gospel) as the boundary of Christian fellowship. Neoevangelicalism could be called “sub-fundamentalist,” while the King James Only movement is hyper-fundamentalist.

Of course, the King James Only movement is only one species of hyper-fundamentalism. Hyper-fundamentalism may revolve around personal and institutional loyalties, idiosyncratic agendas, absurd ethical standards, or the elevation of incidental doctrines and practices. The thing that characterizes all versions of hyper-fundamentalism is the insistence upon draconian reactions for relatively pedestrian—or even imaginary—offenses.

Hyper-fundamentalism and the new evangelicalism are mirror images of each other. The old neoevangelicalsim damaged the gospel, not by denying it, but by attacking its role as a demarcator between Christianity and apostasy. The hyper-fundamentalist does the same kind of damage by adding something else alongside the gospel. If anything, King James Onlyism is worse, for it shows contempt for the Word of God. It attacks the heart of Christianity by sitting in judgment over its source of authority.

via Now, About Those Differences, Part Twenty Three | SharperIron.

First of all, I must say that I primarily use the King James Version.  I am a former King James Only-ite.

The English Standard Version (henceforth ESV) was one of the first translations other than the KJV that I took seriously.  The NKJV simply didn’t leave me feeling comfortable.  As one friend stated, reading the NKJV after the KJV is like kissing one’s cousin.

I truly like the NASB, but there’s a certain stuffiness about it that I can’t explain.  I like the reading, because it’s pretty clear.  It simply doesn’t have the cadence that the KJV has.  The ESV has retained much of that cadence.

The ESV has managed to capture a good deal of the beauty of the KJV while still updating the archaic language.  It is also an understandable translation.  There is one very unfortunate place in the Old Testament that I dislike.  I hope that they will correct it later.

For a person who is leaving the KJV as his only Bible, the ESV is something that I highly recommend, as it will leave that person relatively comfortable.

The ESV is readable, too.  It’s not difficult to me.  I like that.  I also like a translation that seeks to be “essentially literal” (to use the words of Leland Ryken), or a formal equivalence translation.  The ESV does a good job, I think, and is a good English translation.

I will be holding a giveaway next week here on Pastoral Musings, and the winner will receive an ESV Study Bible courtesy of Crossway Publishers.

Related articles

• The New NIV… It’s Here! (kjvonlydebate.com)
• God’s Promise of Divine Preservation (re-fundamentals.org)
• Revelation 22:18-19 And The King James Only Debate (pastoralmusings.com)

Whatever else may be said about the Scriptures (and there is much to say), we must state the the issue of translations was not a fundamental issue among the early Fundamentalists. Though they weighed in heavily against the RSV, the early Fundamentalists were not King James Only.

Read the complete article on Re:Fundamentals.

Why would codex 177 be overlooked? By its Gregory-Aland number, it has obviously been known to NT textual critics for a long, long time. Perhaps it is because the BSB’s catalog description of this manuscript says nothing about the comma for this manuscript. However, a microfilm of the codex is surely to be found at the Institut für neutestamentliche Textforschung in Münster, Germany. Perhaps it is because the marginal note’s ink is slightly fainter than the text, and thus it did not show up on the microfilm. Whatever the reason, it is remarkable that a manuscript whose existence has been known for so long by New Testament scholars, and is housed in a prominent European library, should be overlooked in this passage. In the least, this suggests that there may be many treasures yet to be discovered in known NT manuscripts. Microfilms will not reveal many of them; the only sure way to make such information accessible to scholars is to digitize these codices and make them available on-line.

via The Comma Johanneum in an Overlooked Manuscript – CSNTM.