Talk:King-James-Only Movement/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Archive 1 Archive 2 →

Contents

Removing the Advocacy and Response Section

I have been trying to remove this section due to the fact that is is NOT a NPOV. Whoever is writing this is definately attacking the KJV. Allow me quote a few lines:

"Audiences (most often consisting of local congregations and Bible college students) typically know little or nothing about textual scholarship, and do not have the skills necessary to critically evaluate these claims." -- You do not know the level of education among every KJO advocate. "Audience members are rarely given time to think critically about what is being said. Most KJO presentations deliver information in an extremely fast manner." -- What is your source for this information? "KJO arguments typically involve many logical fallacies in their reasoning" -- My goodness. "Many KJO arguments are similar to those of tax protesters and holocaust deniers in how evidence is interpreted in a way that creates an alternate interpretation of reality. (In common with holocaust deniers, KJO advocates employ a blizzard of statistics in support of their position.) -- This is absolutely inappropriate. "People holding the KJO position are typically closed-minded, and do not tend to listen to arguments presented by the other side. A hardcore KJO advocate is typified by simply being unable to accept that someone could listen to their advocacy and not accept it." -- NPOV?

Once again, I am deleting this section. Either re-write it to a NPOV, or quit re-posting it. --ParkerIFB Febuary 2007

Removing the Pro Arguments Section

I would like to remove the pro arguments section at the bottom. It is fairly redundant and is not NPOV. Also, it feels like an afterthought since it's after the "see also". I will do so in a few days if no one has responded to this. If you want to keep some of those things in the article, it might be best to place them throughout the article and reword them to remove biased words (attack, etc.) --Danreitz 08:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

  • I agree with this - no one has replied in more than a month now, and looking over this section, the point of view is particularly ... acid, even. See for example: "The salvation of St. Paul is attacked, by altering Acts 9:6;". Wait, wait... hold on here. The opposing point of view to that statement is obviously "Newer translations render Acts 9:6 closer in line with earlier manuscripts; and thus are believed to be more accurate". But, this could have been stated in a non-partisan way, such as "Acts 9:6 differs in the KJV and other versions; the Salvation of St. Paul is more steadfastly affirmed in the KJV". Whoever wrote this section didn't do that; their POV stinks throughout the entire section, and I would bet even money that the entire thing was copied from some list compiled on a pro-KJVOnlyism website. The section is also redundant. Since no one has objected, and since I feel that it is a gross error of scholarship to leave it up, I'm going to delete it. (wdunn [at] vt [dot] education) if you need to reach me. 11AM EST / March 28 2006.
  • ...Eh, you know what, I'm going to leave it in for the time being. I thought about it, and I'm going to let it stew in my head for a while. The Pro and Con sections both are incredibly acid and very POV (accusingly, even threateningly), but ... for some reason, I'm starting to come around to think that they need to be there, even if edited to make them less offensive. Hrm... Anyway, I'm going to keep an eye on the article, I am really interested in this stuff, being an amature at textual criticism and having several semesters of NT Greek when I got my history degree a few years back. The article is still ugly... and nasty in parts, but... I'm not sure how the best way to go about it is. (the same wdunn as above, 12AM EST march 28 2006). IP 128.173.41.81
  • I personally believe this article has been written from a 'contemporary' point of view, without much thought given to the 'conservative' point. It looks to me that this article has been editted to attack the KJO point of view, and is most definately biased against the King James Version. How about we 'delete' the Con section?

English-centrism in movement?

So I'm ignorant, but it seems to me a natural question to ask, do these groups also denigrate all non-English Bibles? Do they advocate teaching English to everyone in the world? Jesus Blows Goats 06:59, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Not sure if I should bother answering this, but the question being begged in this way ought to be answered before the implication of the question is adopted by subsequent readers. The range of KJV-only people are not concerned principally with non-English translations for a variety of reasons. The debate is about whether or not new translations into the English language are acceptable or not, and which older translations are acceptable. This is in part because of the sheer volume of English translations of the Bible in comparison with other languages. Obviously, the scholastic leadership within the KJV-only movement (which is not really an organized movement, per se) recognizes that the same problems exist in other languages with respect to modernizing and liberalizing influences on Biblical translation in those tongues, as well as the question of whether or not the traditional manuscripts are used, or Westcott and Hort. The issue is simply not as intense in other languages because most bible translation in other languages is carried out either as derivative of scholastic work in English, or as an indepedant progression from this debate (in other words, in those countries where the lingusitic groups are largely Roman Catholic - the debate is held within the confines of sanctioned translations by the Church, as opposed to various Protestant sects proclaiming their own views). --Nicodemus75 19:22, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I concur with the above remarks. Further,the issues surrounding KJVO are quite subtle, and it's important to keep this in mind. Also at stake is not simply which version is God's revealed word, but issues of copyright (i.e., money), and political and religious agendas. While the controversies regarding KJVO are only particular to the English world, similar controversies exist in other languages as well. One that I am particularily familiar with is the Spanish Reina Valera. 1960 or 1865?


--The KJV is crown copyrighted.

---I seriously doubt you could find a copyright law that would apply to books which are 400 years old. Particular translations might be copyright in that their *particular* translation's spelling corrections and grammer are copyrighted, but even that is relatively rare. The KJV is in public domain, in the same way that the works of shakespeare or the epic of gilgamesh is.

-Thwhen the 1611 KJV was printed, copyright was in perpetuaity, but granted only by the Crown. Subsequent chnges to British Copyright law did not affect the durtion of the copyright. So yes, even though it was published almost 400 years ago, it is _not_ in the public domain. Copyright lw protects it to the same extent that it protects any other book.

-- The King James Version is in fact Public Domain, and not under any copyright laws, as opposed to other 'books' which claim to be the word of God.

The KJV text is still under copyright in the UK. There is an exclusive license to Cambridge and Oxford to publish it from the Crown. Others get around this with a loophole. But remember America did not repect international copyright even in the 20th century - remember the situation with the unauthorized versions of Tolkien's books. The US doesn't respect any international copyright law that would apply to anything as old as the KJV text, making it public domain, but this doesn't apply in the UK itself. I suppose that, technically, the UK's royal family still owns the KJV, although I doubt they would enforce this. Scott1329m 15:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


It is misleading to say America did not respect international copyright; they did but since Burne Convention and Universal Copyright Convention both said that a person was to be treated as if they was a national of the country in question and until 1976 the US had copyright based on date of publication you had some real strange situations [1] where a work would go public domain in one country but still be protected by copyright in another.--216.31.14.60 23:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

To the original question by Jesus Blows Goats, a majority of people in the King James only movement do not comment on the non-English versions because, dare I say this as this stance is not Christian, it is not of primary concern to them that whatever the non-English speaking bretherns in Christ are doing. Simply out, they leave this question to the corresponding bretherns in whatever their own first language to decide.
But it does appear that a logical conclusion of some of the more extreme wings of the King James only movement is that either all non-English versions should be translated with respect to the King James (a little like many Catholic versions of the Bible in many languages being translated from the Latin Vulgate rather than original manuscripts), or (for the even more extreme wing) yes, the non-English speaking Christians should be taught to speak English to fully understand the Bible in the King James edition. I know a Singapore-based ordained pastor has written a list of translation differences between King James and the Chinese Union Version, designed as an "errata" for Chinese-speaking Christians to read the King James transliterations in Chinese. A more moderate wing accepts any non-English language translation as long as they use the same manuscripts as the King James for translation.--JNZ 06:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Alexandrian manuscripts?

the Alexandrian manuscripts sounds very knowledgable. Can anyone clue us in? What manuscripts are referred to here? Wetman 04:48, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It must mean manuscripts of the Alexandrian text-type, I've linked it accordingly. DopefishJustin 05:40, May 11, 2004 (UTC)

It does sound very knowledgable, but it is very deceptive. When the Alexandrian manuscripts are referred to, they usually mean Codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. While the former was found in the trash at a monastery at Mt. Sinai, the latter was in the Vatican's library. The problem with the two is that while most scholars always argue about their superiority because of their age, and though they don't agree with the Majority Text, they themselves differ with each other in thousands of places (or hundreds, can't recall) in the Gospels alone. Most of the modern translations use the Westcott and Hort greek text or Nestles as the foundation for their translation. Nestles is basically the same as the Westcott and Hort text, and their text was based on the corrupt manuscripts in discussion. Corrupt, because they omit some words or verses here and there, and it seems as if one of the scribes of one of those manuscripts tampered with the other. ElEsElRdRyElSdS 18:40, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

New King James Version (NKJV)

The article makes no mention of this. Should it? Is the NKJV acceptable? ChessPlayer 08:24, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

The NKJV is in no way acceptable to King-James-Only people. It is not the King James Version.

BTW, the term Episcopal Church USA is used by that group; "American Episcopal" in not. That's why it was in the article the way that it was.

Rlquall 22:51, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Rlquall is correct in that the NKJV is "in no way acceptable" to staunch KJV supporters. A previous editor tried to add this to the article in this way: "Interestingly, even the use of only the texts available in the early 1600s for the main body of the work fails to placate the supporters of the King-James-Only Movement, who see the New King James Version (1982) as a total counterfeit unworthy of the name 'King James.'"

I found this lacking due to:

1) use of loaded words to bias the POV ("Interestingly, even..." [implies irrationality on part of KJV backers since they do not agree to something that is evidently supposed to be reasonable]; "placate" [implies irrational anger on part of KJV people]; "total counterfeit" [implies unreasoned rejection especially in view of point 2 below]) and--

2) an utter lack of effort to discover any reason why staunch KJV people might disapprove of the NKJV. There are in fact reasons, and there are also grounds on which people who support modern versions dislike the NKJV. I have tried to suggest both classes of potential objections in my revisions to the article to provide balance and make the entry more comprehensive. --MollyTheCat 02:23, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

The NKJV is unacceptable to KJV only for two major reasons:

1) Key words such as "hell" are retranslated to words such as "grave" or "Sheol" based on texts outside the Textus Receptus (the text upon which the KJV was based.) This is only one example, but the idea there is that it's more than a simple update of the language, it's retranslation.

2) The old testament translation of the NKJV is based on the ben Asher manuscripts, the KJV was based on the ben Chayim manuscripts. They differ and the differ carries over into the new translation. --bkellihan 05:16, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

KJV based on Geneva

The really weird thing about this movement is that they idolise the KJV of all versions, considering that it was itself a politically-motivated watering-down of the genuinely Protestant and hugely popular Geneva Bible. --172.190.168.21 23:46, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I have personally found the NKJV to be an extremely comparible version with the KJV (1885), the Geneva, and the Bishops. It should probably be renamed to reflect its own work since it causes a controversy with KJVOs, being that it is not the "original" KJV, but an updated version. One thing to remember, however, is the KJV was never called the "King James Version" in England. It was given this name by Americans. So, of course, it makes sense to call the NKJV by another name, even since the original KJV text did not have King James' name on it originally. It was called the Authorized Version since it was authorized by the King. Perhaps, the NKJV should be renamed as the Modern English Version or Modern Holy Bible. -- Priscilla4Christ'sTruth

Actually, if you look up the history, before the KJV was out, the Bishop's Bible was the one being read in the church. It was the "pew bible", and King James ordered the KJV to be based on this, of course with the other versions "diligently compared and revised." The New Testament was largely based on Tyndale's translation, contributing to 90% of it. King James didn't like the Geneva bible because of it's Calvinistic marginal notes, and therefore the KJV couldn't have been based on the Geneva. Furthermore, NKJV cannot be compared with the KJV nor with the former translations (Bishop's, Geneva, Coverdale, Matthew, Tyndale) mainly because of it's wording. Not only that, but it differs a lot in many verses making some unclear (Ezra 8:36a), and some with words changed, changing the meaning (Job 17:1a, Psalm 19:6, Psalm 22:21, and Song of Solomon 1:4, 6, 7, 10, 11, 14; 2:5, 7, 9, 16, 17; 3:2, 9; 4:1, 3, 5, 9; 5:2, 5, 12; 6:2, 7, 8, 12, 13; 7:1, 4, 5a, 7, 8, 9, 12; 8:1, 9, 10) These numbers are just a few of the changes, because conservative estimates of the translation changes are put over at 100,000. 19:06, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses

I have just removed the reference to Jehovah's Witnesses in this article because it is factually incorrect. The paragraph in question read: "Another supporter of the King-James-Only view is the Jehovah's Witnesses, who feel their theological positions weakened by new renderings of the biblical text, since they tend to rely on text features quite specific to the KJV."

There are a number of problems with this statement based on some misconceptions of positions held by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society (Jehovah's Witnesses).

First, the Jehovah's Witness use their own "translation" (it is not a true translation, but rather a recension), titled "The New World Translation". The JWs object to the KJV and other versions because of their opposition to the doctrine of the Holy Trinity which is expounded in orthodox translations such as the KJV. Their historic opposition to orthodox Chrisitan theology on the Trinity is one of the main reasons for creating their own translation. Despite the fact that the JWs will often point out that the word "JEHOVAH" appears occasionally in the KJV (most notably Psalm 83:18) as the name of God the Father, this is in no way an endorsement of the KJV, simply a point they make for the purposes of buttressing their prodigious use of the Name of God the Father. Notwithstanding this position, the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society did formerly publish their own copies of the KJV (as well as other protestant translations) prior to the 1970's when The New World Translation was published. The NWT is now the exclusive bible used by JWs. Most importantly, the JWs did not use the KJV or the Textus Receptus when 'translating' the NWT, it is based on Westcott and Hort lke most other modern translations. The JWs really have no relationship to the KJV-only movement whatsoever. The position of the Jehobah's Witnesses since the institutionalization of the NWT is that all translations of the bible (broadly speaking) not produced by themselves are inherently corrupted by false teaching.

--Nicodemus75 18:51, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The JW's I studyed with for 15 years said that the truth was in all bibles and One can teach from any of them,then again they shunned me and my dovote son when my wife devoriced me coz I could not sire a daugther (all sons 9 gen,s)They are good at the talk not the walk .And they bible is full of falsehoods.I have now returned to the KJV,is that a movement?````

--Comment added by 203.87.203.110 on 01:19, 10 June 2006 (Moved and tagged by MollyTheCat 11:41, 11 June 2006 (UTC) from Page History as user had inserted comments in those of Nicodemus75 without signing them.)

Latter-day Saints (Mormons)

I think it's misleading to lump the LDS church in with the KJV-only movement. While it is true that the LDS church has long preferred the KJV in English-speaking countries (and discouraged the official use of other English translations), LDS beliefs are not in harmony with KJV-only positions on the (un)reliability of various manuscripts and the (near-)inerrancy of the KJV text. -- Richwales

Good point; I'll edit the article to make this clear. Also the LDS uses mostly the KJV but there's also that issue of the Joseph Smith translation - which in fact is the source of footnotes in the LDS publication of the KJV. Kaibabsquirrel 06:50, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
I think it's an important point to keep. While the Joseph Smith Translation was an attempt at a standard work, Joseph Smith died before it was completed. The KJV is the standard version used by the Mormons, though I don't believe that the doctrine is as dogmatic as some followers of the King-James-Only Movement movement. Here's a link that may be of interest(http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/1983.htm/ensign%20august%201983%20.htm/the%20value%20of%20new%20textual%20sources%20to%20the%20king%20james%20bible%20.htm?f=templates$fn=default.htm$3.0). Perhaps it's worth adding to the external links.

I would have to 2nd richwales ideas... they may use the king james bible but they use the book of mormon! c'mon. Must i really explain King James ONLY?!!! lol I think a the view of mormons is way off topic of the discussion of king james onlyism.

I have edited the sentence referring to "Mormon" usage of the AV to represent this accordingly. If there are problems with my edit please act accordingly. NoCoolName_Tom | Talk 03:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

We might want to make mention of the fact that the Community of Christ (fka RLDS) does not take this position. 68.116.99.184 22:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

King James Version and the question of a "movement"

Hi, all. I have made multiple extensive revisions to try to provide some counterpoint to what I feel was previously an extremely non-neutral POV article with several arguable claims. For example, as Nicodemus75 pointed out above, this is "not really an organized movement, per se"; we are actually dealing with terminology that comes from the book The King James Controversy by James R. White (a book that FWIW I feel has huge inaccuracies and blind spots, though these did not seem appropriate to mention in the entry [would have added biased POV in the other direction]). I changed some of the phrasing for that reason (e.g., substituting "position" for "movement," suggesting that the "KJVO" nickname itself might be taken amiss [with citation of White's answer to this]). Also, several of the statements in the article as I found it needed clarification--there was, for instance, no serious effort to understand why KJV advocates might object to the NKJV, and the attempt to derive this so-called "movement" from evangelical/fundamentalist dislike of the RSV ignores the heavy influence of John William Burgon on the arguments used by KJV folks.

I find a lot of the RSV discussion's verbiage--such as "it being the time of the Second Red Scare and McCarthyism"--open to serious question as being non-neutral POV, but have left it in as my objective was not to remove information, but to enhance and clarify what is there, especially by adding on the other hand sort of points to suggest the possibility that there are other perspectives that deserve understanding rather than summary dismissal. Hope this is of help. --MollyTheCat 09:31, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Two things: (1) the perceived tie-in to Communism is real! It is not a POV thing, but an accurate description of the KJO message that went out back then. It's also important to note the RSV was handed down by denominational leaders and forced on churches and pastors back then. Independent and fundamentalist churches, already haunted by the spectre of Communism and committed to local autonomous church government, did not see this as a good thing. But (2) the citation for that is oral, and it's not online anywhere. Pastor L.R. Shelton, Sr. in his original "The Anti-Christ Bible" material about the RSV basically accused the modernists who produced the RSV of being in league with the Communists. Remember, this was in the 1950s at the height of the cold war. If I had some of the material, I could provide quotes and citations, but I don't have the printed matter and it has never been put online. These are old offset-press booklets that don't exist in electronic format. If a citation is necessary, I could get the materials and provide more detail. Scott1329m 12:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The KJV only is a movement. Burgeon did not believe the KJV was perfect and that there was no improvement needed. KJV-only means that you think the KJV is perfect, that is why there is no other Bible. This has shown to birthed from Benjamin Wilkinson. You will not find one article or document calling the KJV "a perfect translation". All of the confessions of faith before always labeled perfection in the originals and that there were corrections to be made. People keep confusing KJV-only with Textus Receptus. TR only in no way holds the view "KJV is the exact words of GOD." Burgeon himself called for a revision of the TR. KJV only is a 20th century creation. 68.125.189.60 00:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Note that the KJO position is under constant evolution. Even now, you'll have people from different strata saying different things. A good clue is the Septuagint - more recent developments have "proven" the Septuagint did not exist during New Testament times. (They have to say this because of other things they assert which are invalid if the Septuagint existed in NT times.) People who talk about the Septuagint as if it existed back in NT times in their KJO material are an iteration behind the current thinking. (KJO originally came mainly from dispensationalist sources, whose theology undergoes similar iterations.) So, my point is, there are waves or iterations of KJO. It is not static. There are really three main waves:
  1. Pre-1952 including Dean Burgon. KJO as we know it did not exist then, but there were objections to some of the RV's translations and the Critical Text's textual choices.
  2. The RSV's release. This was the start of the modern movement, but the liberal translation was the focus and not the textual streams.
  3. The 1970s: This is when Wilkinson's material came into play with Which Bible? etc. and the modern KJO position was adopted.
Since the 70s, the KJO position has not changed whole lot, just gotten more polished. Scott1329m 12:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Pro-KJB reference section, UPC is not KJB

Newbie here. Generally very good article. Thanks.

Vis a vis the references section for pro-KJB, good to see David Cloud library and Timothy Dunkin -- helpful would be the links to the Thomas Holland books/lessons fully on the web rather than the ISBN, Will Kinney's indepth group of articles (perhaps he could index them better), as Will does by far the most complete web point-to-point rebuttal of 'errors', Brandon Staggs 'Magic Marker' page might overlap the other references but is very visual and well done, and, in books, perhaps the William Grady classic "Final Authority".

Placing the UPC as KJB-only is a stretch. They are far, far less so than many Baptist groups, where the KJB understanding is strongest, and less so than many Reform, and even historic Adventists and others. Little teaching on the subject in UPC. Amongst their authors, Daniel Segraves wrote a good, albeit probably out-of-print KJB-oriented book "The Search for the Word of God, In Defense of the King James Bible". Even his position today is not really KJB, since he considers the NKJV as ok. In the pulpits and pews, especially outside of the south, are lots of modern versions. Especially the NIV, as it long ago got the mistaken imprimatur in some evangelical circles as their translation.

Since I am new, feel free to instruct me on proper Wikepedia netiquette directly. If you like, I can add URL's and more thoughts. Shalom, Steven Avery - Queens, NY schmuel@escape.com http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic/

Welcome, Steven. Good to have your thoughts.
When you feel more comfortable about editing (the "Editing help" link at the bottom of most pages, which opens a new browser window, is a good "crash course"), I'd encourage you to consider making the enhancements you suggest as far as links and clarifying the UPC's position. If you have been following the conversations above and the recent changes in this entry, you know that the article at one point had such things as John R. Rice considered a "KJVO" which is probably along the same lines of absurdity as the UPC comments. I'm also not really happy with the LDS linkage, and the Jehovah's Witness association that originally appeared in the entry (as noted above) is similarly without basis; it seems that whoever originally authored this had more of a polemicist's mindset than a neutral POV one, if you know what I mean.
I have made some fairly far-reaching changes based on what I know, but I was not prepared to be as free in editing what I do not know directly. Maybe you could consider some edits based on what you bring to the table? Anyway, glad to have you here. --MollyTheCat 00:52, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
I forgot to mention above, re: your point about Dr. Holland, that I happen to know him and he used to have a webpage on AOL, but he changed ISPs not too long ago and his pages are inactive and going to go bye-bye (vanish from AOL) if they have not done so already. I know some of Doc's lessons were carried on various other sites, though. If you could provide a good link to the full set of Holland lessons, that would be great. --MollyTheCat 00:57, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Molly, I still am unsure about the gist of multi-editing, I wonder how peace is maintained :-) however I do appreciate very much how you have balanced the discussion and entries.

For now, let me give some of the Thomas Holland material here. Two books, including a link to Crowned with Glory that is not his AOL page.

http://www.purewords.org/kjb1611/html/holland.htm#targ5 Manuscript Evidence

http://members.aol.com/Logos1611/index.html - (Thomas Holland page) Crowned With Glory http://www.bbconfire.com/articles/crownedglory/crownedwithglory.asp - Bible Beleivers Church, Seattle 'used with permission'

The UPC reference, imho, probably is best simply removed. I just gave more detail as a backup, and to allow for counterpoint. (e.g. something in their charter or bylaws).

Here is the Brandon Staggs 'Magic Marker' page, he also has a Crowned review, a page excerpt, and other good stuff. http://av1611.com/kjbp/charts/themagicmarker.html

And here is one page with Will Kinney material, he mirrors on this site. http://www.patriotist.com/wkarchive.htm I can ask Will to make a page in another format, perhaps book by book.

Shalom, Steven Avery schmuel@nyc.rr.com (corrected, have to correct in profile :-) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic/

OK, Steven--I have introduced a good portion of the links and deleted the UPC reference as you suggested. If you feel you'd like to make other changes or additions, please do.
BTW, the Thomas Holland page you referenced is the one he abandoned when he left AOL. I don't know what AOL's policy is on when pages get deleted that are left by members exiting their service; evidently they leave the pages up for a time, though if anyone uses the link on the AOL page to write to Dr. Holland via AOL, I somewhat doubt the message would get to him.  ;) --MollyTheCat 22:44, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Someone's new edits

I see that a couple of edits have just been done by 69.141.39.241, who changed "The nickname 'King-James-Only' appears to have originated with a popular book by James R. White..." to "The nickname 'King-James-Only' appears to have originated with a popular book by Christian apologist James R. White...." (I'd imagine that we have this from the same kind of quarters which created the "James White (theologian)" entry, Dr. White not in my opinion being of quite the authorial prominence that would otherwise seem to demand a Wikipedia entry, despite having a significant "fan base.")

The "Christian apologist" designation? OK, that seems fair. But the insertion of "controversial" in the first sentence ("The so-called "King-James-Only Movement" is a controversial position within Protestant fundamentalist Christianity...") seems needless in view of what already has been written into the article later on ("Within broader evangelical circles, the King James Only belief is controversial and is widely rejected") and a simple attempt to bias the article's POV back into a hostile direction. I'm taking this out to make the opening more neutral POV. -MollyTheCat 09:45, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Name

The title of this movement would be more appropriate as something like "King James-only movement" or something similar, in keeping with Wikipedia's standard of minimizing capitalization of article titles as well as removing a spurious dash. Is "King James-only movement" an appropriate name, or would another be better? (Please do not create a redirect from this until this has been decided, to simplify a potential move.) DDerby(talk) 06:48, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other about the naming convention, DDerby. If your suggestion were adopted, it would not bother me. As others have noted here, there are some questions about the whole basis of the article, which essentially exists because of James White's book (and his talent in it for coining a derogatory name for his opponents). Had White's book never been written, I think it's doubtful that we would be discussing a "movement" regarding KJV adherents. The position is clearly identifiable as a position (or more accurately, several somewhat-similar positions, as the article indicates) with many backers and much consensus in certain quarters. But I rather doubt there is a coordinated effort to meet and devise strategy (e.g. at some "KJO Movement World Headquarters") for advancing "the cause," any more than there is among the so-called "Alexandrian Cult" whose naming is critiqued in White's book. The premise of this article is a name ("movement") that is not terribly accurate, but has helped sell books and gained traction among many as an insulting term to throw at others. That's why we have this article we are discussing, IMHO. -MollyTheCat 10:05, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Someone should mention the nicknames of the opposing views such as: "scholarship only" and "multiple-versions only" since this view is given a nickname, I'm sure, in order to brand it as a "cult".64.136.239.202 (talk) 14:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

That's the thing -- the opposition is not particularly exclusive (or "only") with respect to anything, but is generally open to using ANY relevant and helpful information from different Greek manuscript traditions, different ancient-language versions, and taking into account any scholarship which is relevant and helpful to understanding the meaning of Biblical texts. AnonMoos (talk) 15:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Entire article seems misleading

The whole idea of 'King-James-Only' within the Independent Baptist churches and schools I've attended always tends towards the belief that ONLY the King James Bible is worthy of using. I know the article talks of the variations, but just because a church/school believes that the original texts were the only inspired scriptures, believe in faith that God preserved them in the TR, and use the KJV in services, it doesn't mean they are 'King James Only.' For example, the Modern King James Version (MKJV) uses the same texts as the AV. Most institutions that believe as I discussed would not throw out the MKJV, even though they use the KJV for formal, public services. The title King-James-Only seems to misrepresent this belief. Pensacola Christian College for example, believes as I discussed, but they do not accept the title 'King-James-Only' because it tends to refer to Ruckmanites. --02:42, 29 October 2005 by 68.156.93.130 [<--Attribution added by MollyTheCat from Edit History]

Dear 68.156.93.130, your point is well-taken. In response, I would say that the whole idea of a "King James Only" so-called movement is essentially (to the best of my knowledge) the brainchild of James R. White, whose 1995 book The King James Only Controversy not only has numerous problems (including inaccuracies, double standards, etc.) but has aged rather badly in view of the last decade of developments. It's no longer possible, I submit, to gloss over the very real problems of many modern translations and give blanket approval to the lot, as later, more careful (and more scholarly) writers like Leland Ryken have shown. Very many including Ryken are troubled by loose paraphrases passing themselves off as translations (a notorious case being Eugene Peterson's The Message), and there is clearly a market-driven, commerce-first factor in many new versions (such as Today's New International Version, replacing the supposedly archaic New International Version) that is ill suited to what most evangelicals would regard as the Christian goal of not making merchandise of God's word. White either did not foresee these developments or did not consider them significant when he released his book a decade ago, in an effort to make a splash and score polemical points with his oversimplified look at the modern translations vs. KJV issue. The original entry, FWIW, was authored by someone who, like White, wanted to score points off "KJVO"s and wrote with a far from neutral POV (though I and many others have revised heavily to bring some sort of balance to the article).
Your comments identify a primary problem in White's book: that his categorizations do not fit a good many Bible-believers very accurately. But over a number of years of dealing with this very shoddy and unkind book, I have come to believe, sadly, that it was not a priority of James White's to be either fair or accurate in his writing (although I have no doubt that White, like Dan Rather with the faked Bush National Guard documents, is entirely convinced of his own good faith and sincere intentions).--MollyTheCat 01:41, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Molly, agreement here, the term KJO itself is deliberately tinged, and then adding 'movement' is doubly dubious. The word 'movement' should best be removed or replaced.

Personally I don't mind having a 'KJO' Wikipedia entry separate, especially since on the Internet there is a vibrant discussion and the page is generally fair.

In this context, let me add that many folks against the King James Bible position try to give the impression that "KJVO" folks insist that only the English KJB be used anywhere, (seeing the "Only" designation) despite the fact that some of the most active men in Bible translation and distribution in foreign lands are King James Bible folks (check the histories of John Hinton, David Cloud and Peter Ruckman and others).

Btw, Molly, you might want to look at the King James Version page as well. I placed a few notes in the discussion there but have not edited.

24.193.219.212 10:10, 15 November 2005 (UTC) Shalom, Steven Avery http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

"some of the most active men in Bible translation and distribution in foreign lands are King James Bible folks" - slightly disingenuous; these good people insist that only the KJV can be used as a basis for translating the Bible into other languages, so any errors in the KJV are necessarily propagated into these other languages.
RachelBrown 20:42, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi Rachel, You raise a good question, but I do not think it is necessarily accurate. Each person would have to be canvassed, such as John Hinton and David Cloud and probably many others - Hinton I know is skilled in the biblical languages, but I haven't asked him his methodology. There is an element of King James Bible folks that believes translation should be from the KJB, but there is also an element, very possibly larger, who believes translation should use the Received Texts as the primary source, and that otherwise you can add an artificial English sytlistic/grammatical spin to the translation. Sometimes these folks even talk about how a text could be a "Received Text" for another language (e.g. the early Reina-Valera for Spanish). 24.193.219.212 Shalom, Steven Avery schmuel@nyc.rr.com http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

Steven - no doubt you're right, but that reflects the different strands there are within the KJB movement (if indeed you can speak of one movement). There are people who insist that (in English at least) the KJV is the best, if not infallible, and that any other meaning, even if clearly a better translation of the original, must be wrong. Such people, if they engage in translation into other languages, obviously start and end with what it says in the KJV, while no doubt conceding that their act of translation is not as perfect as that of the KJV translators. At the other extreme, there are those whose only major complaint about other translations is that the New Testament is not based on the Textus receptus; there are all sorts of intermediate positions. Shalom.
RachelBrown 09:01, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Steven and Rachel, you both make worthwhile points on this, and Rachel's note of "all sorts of intermediate positions" to me further illustrates the unsound nature of White's hard-and-fast categorizations. The "positions" even in this subset (how one who is pro-KJV regards Bibles in other languages) of the main question (whether KJV is itself infallible, just the best there currently is, only a representation of what some consider the best Greek texts [TR], etc.) are extremely varied.

One illustration of the unpredictability of this subset is something I read many years back regarding Peter Ruckman's position on the Spanish Bible. Historically, the Reina-Valera in its various revisions has been the standard Spanish Bible. (FWIW, I believe the revision of 1909 is the one that many if not most KJV supporters would back as opposed to the 1960, which brings it closer in translation choices to NKJV). A guy named McVey brought out a new Spanish translation of his own which was supposed to be closer to representing the English KJV than Reina-Valera. Believe it or not, Ruckman did not support McVey's translation and upheld Reina-Valera. One particular example I recall is that where the Reina-Valera referred to the Holy Spirit as "Espiritu Santo," McVey went for a literal representation of KJV's "Holy Ghost" by replacing "Espiritu" with "fantasma." Ruckman criticized this, and although I am not by any means knowledgable in Spanish, I can well imagine that "fantasma" might carry the wrong connotation in Spanish--such as of a ghost rattling chains on Halloween and haunting houses. ("Ghost" by itself also carries this connotation in English, but "Holy Ghost" remains, I think, generally understood due to long usage and tradition.) Since a person who is new to the issue might assume a figure like Ruckman would automatically support any translation that--like McVey's--attempts to exactly duplicate KJV in another language, this example is illuminating and suggests that Steven's point about other figures (Cloud, Hinton) possibly having different positions is a good one. -MollyTheCat 13:41, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

24.193.219.212 00:45, 23 November 2005 (UTC) Yes, ladies, I believe you both have a good fix on the issues involved. (There must be a tear in the space-time-continuum). The Spanish Bible situation was one that I had in mind, and your description sounds spot-on, and there is also the issue of considering the early Reina-Valera the 'Received Text' to the spanish language people, so who has the right to try to replace a 'received text' ? (rhetorical question). btw, much as I disagree with with White virtually top to bottom, his setting up of five KJB positions was a tool, so personally I wouldn't get harsh on the details of that. From the Mind of God to the Mind of Man by James B. Williams on page 2 I understand does its own similar five-fold categorization. Probably those are the most accurate part of the Williams and White books :-) Incidentally the WhichVersion open mildly moderated forum on Yahoogroups today has cordially invited Theodore Mann (who wrote an anti-KJB hatchet job, with all the KJB 'errors' and such, in a scholarly journal) to join a discussion of his article that has just begun. Awaiting his reply. Question: When you have a new sub-topic like this 'translation-source-text' question, is it worthwhile to try to retrofit a subheading into the discussion ? 24.193.219.212 00:45, 23 November 2005 (UTC) Shalom, Steven Avery schmuel@nyc.rr.com http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

Chick tract

To avoid any confusion, I included Chick's tract 'The Attack' not as a scholarly source but more as an example of KJV-Only aimed at the common man. Chick doesn't have any novel theological insights and he doesn't present concepts in any great depth, but his tracts are still significant because they're popular (in both senses of the word). --Calair 03:12, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

You raise a good point. Jack Chick Publications has been one of the big movers and shakers in the KJV-only camp. His materials are oft used in the pro-KJV arguments. Perhaps more about it should be added in this Wiki article.

Jehovah

The recent revisions to that section have introduced a lot of circuitous periphrastic wordiness, and the incorrect spelling "qri"[sic] -- I feel inclined to eventually simply revert them if there's no improvement. AnonMoos 02:21, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Some readers of this section may not have known that, for all practical purposes, KJVO Christians are the only Christians who defend the vowel points of "יְהֹוָה". Seeker02421 11:50, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
There are also the Jehovah's Witnesses. AnonMoos 20:30, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
Many Jehovah's Witnesses do not defend the vowel points of "יְהֹוָה". Seeker02421 01:29, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
And many do, including some with claims to scholarship. AnonMoos 03:09, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
The Watchtower Society does not defend the vowel points of "יְהֹוָה". Seeker02421 01:29, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
It effectively denies that "Jehovah" only originated as a mistaken misunderstanding by early Christian Hebraists. AnonMoos
Some KJVO Christians state that the King James Version is God's Word for all English speaking peoples (sic) without any proven error. Their defence of the vowel points of "יְהֹוָה" probably can not be disproven, since the Masoretes did not place the "precise" vowel points of Adonay [a.k.a. Adonai] into the Tetragrammaton. Seeker02421 11:50, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
It can be most definitely proven that Jews were NOT usually pronouncing written YHWH aloud with any of the consonant sounds [y], [h], or [w] by the time that the Massoretes invented their orthographic vowel diacritic systems! Furthermore, when YHWH occurs next to the word "Adonai" in the Biblical text, then it's pointed with an "e" shwa and an "i" diacritic -- i.e. יֱהוִה -- and NOT with a neutral schwa and an "a" diacritic יְהוָה (this indicates that in such cases YHWH is pronounced aloud as "Elohim", rather than the more usual "Adonai"). AnonMoos 20:30, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
KJVO Christians don't care how many scholars tell them that the Masoretes didn't point "יְהֹוָה". correctly. KJVO Christians defend the vowel points of "יְהֹוָה", because the Masoretes did not point "יְהֹוָה" with the precise same vowel points that Adonay is pointed with. KJVO Christians are adamant in their belief that the vowel points of "יְהֹוָה" are the actual vowel points of God's name.. Seeker02421 01:29, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
They believe that "qeri perpetuum" [a.k.a. Q're perpetuum or "perpetual Qere"] is an unproven theory.
Really? Then how do they explain the pronoun He-Waw-Aleph with an "i" diacritic occurring in the Pentateuch with the meaning "she"? The King James Bible doesn't translate as "he" instead of "she" in such cases, so it seems that recognition of Q're perpetuum is embedded in the KJV translation itself. Furthermore, denying Q're perpetuum won't even really help very much, since the best Hebrew Biblical manuscripts have יְהוָה without "o" diacritic, and NOT יְהֹוָה
KJVO Christians deny that Q're perpetuum is a valid theory, because the Masoretes did not point "יְהֹוָה" with the precise same vowels that Adonay is pointed with.Seeker02421 01:29, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes, you've already repeated this several times -- however, there are a number of issues which the chanting of this mantra simply doesn't even address, as I've already explained in detail... AnonMoos 03:09, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
However, all this is somewhat tangential to the main issue, which is that your edits have added more verbosity than clarity -- and the fact that you insist on using the incorrect 19th-century spelling Q'ri instead of the current almost universal usage Q're doesn't do much to convince me that you have well-rounded knowledge of the subject. AnonMoos 20:30, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
I quoted the Catholic Encyclopedia as it was written. The Catholic Encyclopedia used the term Qeri Perpetuum, so that was what I wrote. Seeker02421 01:29, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
I assume that you are a Wikipedia moderator. If you are a Wikipedia Moderator, you have full authority to delete any of my edits, as part of the clean-up of this article. Seeker02421 01:29, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Dude,
1) If we were writing an article on the Flat Earth theory, then we wouldn't maintain a scrupulous neutrality as to whether the earth were flat or spherical.
2) The Catholic Encylopedia was written in 1911, and scholarship may have moved on a tiny wee bit since 1911.
3) I'm just a lowly user like yourself -- a lowly user who is dissatisfied with your last edits to the "Jehovah" section of this article, and is trying to get you to work with me to fix it (since I presume you don't wish a childish "revert war" any more than I do). AnonMoos 03:09, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I have rewritten Section #3 [i.e. The King-James-Only movement supports the name "Jehovah"] of the main Article.

I have tried to abide by Wikipedia's NPOV [neutral point of view] policy.

I definitely tried to present the evidence being used by KJVO Christians when they dogmatically defend the name "Jehovah". Simply stated, since the Masoretes did not point "יְהֹוָה" with the precise same vowel points as "Adonay" is pointed with, KJVO Christians believe that "יְהֹוָה" is pointed with the actual vowel points of God's name.

KJVO Christians may be in error, but they are adamant in what they believe about the name "Jehovah". Seeker02421 14:03, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Latest edits

AnonMoos, By any chance are you associated in any way with Greater Grace World Outreach in Baltimore, Maryland? Seeker02421 22:33, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Never heard of it -- I'm basically a "lone wolf", and am not pushing the view of any particular organized group. AnonMoos

That's a very nice image you posted. I couldn't have created that image with my SIL Ezra-SE font, as it would have placed the holem directly over the "vav / waw", instead of between the upper left side of the first he, and the upper right side of the "vav / waw". What font are you using, and will it work on Windows XP? Seeker02421 22:33, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

It's a custom hacked version of the "Shalom" font, which I use in PostScript files. Using hand-coded PostScript means that I can place each character exactly where I want it to go (and can also generate very small PDF files). The font is in Type 1 PostScript "PFA" format (for use in PostScript text files), and is not installed in Windows; if it were changed to be compatible with Adobe Type Manager software, converted to binary "PFB" format, and had an accompanying "PFM" file generated, then there's a chance it could be installed in Windows XP, but I'm unlikely to undertake this project. AnonMoos

I thank you for releasing your image into the public domain. I have plans to modify the text somewhat, and then scan it as a high resolution JPEG image, later to be reduced to a 600 pixel wide image, for posting on Ezboard Discussion boards. Seeker02421 22:33, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Why put it in JPEG when JPEG is extremely lousy in dealing with images with abrupt brightness transitions and thin sharp lines (i.e. rendered text)?? GIF or PNG would be much better. If you have e-mail, I could send you the vector PDF file, and you could render it at any size you wanted. AnonMoos 15:01, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Other comments

1) Please don't use the abbreviation "KJVO" in the article -- you seem to be the only one using it.

2) Your current edits have expanded the "Jehovah" section to a probably disproportionate length (relative to the length of the whole article). AnonMoos 15:01, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Scott Jones' defence of the name Jehovah

Scott Jones' article "Jehovah" is a well written article in defence of the name "Jehovah". Scott deals with theophoric names starting with "Jeho" as part of his defence of the name "Jehovah"

When posting on a KJVO Discussion board in early 2002, he presented a defence of the vowel points of "יְהֹוָה" that I have used in section #3 of the Wikipedia Article: King-James-Only Movement.

Seeker02421 13:01, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

It's moderately interesting, but it seems to rely exclusively on 19th-century scholarship, so it's unlikely to impress modern scholars. And he seems to implictly accept Q're perpetuum in some cases (where YHWH is pronounced Elohim). But link it to the article, if you want. AnonMoos 20:03, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

"Onlyist"

Is "KJV Onlyists" really neutral terminology? All of the first 20 Google hits on onlyist or onlyists seem to be from anti-KJV-only sites... AnonMoos 14:35, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

It is a conjegated form of KJV Only, which is what they call themselves. Unsigned comment by IP 71.37.161.107, 03:41, 27 December 2005
Actually, it's a morphogically-derived form, not "conjegated" [sic]. If you want to put it back into the article, then you should present some evidence that they prefer the use of this term to refer to themselves. AnonMoos 18:39, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
AnonMoos, "KJV Only" is most definitely not "neutral terminology." I have commented above on my belief that it originated with James R. White's 1995 book The King James Only Controversy. It may be that in the 11 years since that publication, some KJV supporters have adopted it, but I'd be surprised if a majority preferred such a designation; as a KJV supporter myself, I definitely do not and find it derogatory and insulting. (That White felt he had to defend his usage of his nickname on p. 248 of his book shows that 11 years ago it had not gained the ground it has gained today, after amplification on scores of sites that parrot White on this issue.) --MollyTheCat 00:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
While it may not be neutral (which is debatable--all groups in consideration believe in some attribution of only to the KJV; e.g., only reliable translation, only translation to be used in public worship, only translation with certain credentials, &c) it is Wiki notable; whether James White invented the term or not. 64.234.1.144 05:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
And I say notable not only because White is a published, recognized source in the book MollyTheCat mentions, but because of other publications which use the term, e.g., Beacham-Bauder, eds., One Bible Only? Examining Exclusive Claims for the King James Bible (Kregel, 2001), pp. 12, 15, 17, 19, al. 64.234.1.144 06:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Remaining cleanup issues?

The article seems to be in fairly good shape to me. What are remaining issues which justify the presence of the cleanup template? AnonMoos 18:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

The verses should not be quoted in italics, (even though I've done so here for consistency), because italicized text is relevant within the KJV itself to indicate English words not literally in the source but added by the translators. It is certainly interesting that Jesus Christ quotes the italicized text of Deut 8:3 in Matt 4:4 without italics. (The word word is italicized in Deut 8:3 but not in Matt 4:4.)

The problematic verse comment on Acts 12:4 is a popular criticism, but ignores the context given in Acts 12:3, (Then were the days of unleavened bread.), which shows that the single night Passover event had already occurred somewhere in the past seven days. Even though the TR source text does say pascha, translating it as Passover here would contradict verse 3.

There is no contradiction in using Passover. vs 4 says ...intending after Passover... Michael.Pohoreski 19:07, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
You are very ignorant. I understand that the KJV advocates always point to verse three (because I do), and now you come with the monkey wrench. Well, here. Take back your wrench. There is a contradiction if Passover is used. Verse 3 says "then were the days of unleavened bread." You say there would be no contradiction if verse 4 read "intending after Passover to bring him forth to the people." Look at verse 5. It says he kept him in prison. So. If verse 4 is suppose to read "Passover" instead of "Easter", then why didn't Herod get it over with. He kept him in prison much longer then the end of passover, so the correct rendering would be "Easter", not "Passover".

Hislop's The Two Babylons presents evidence showing the history of Easter as a Babylonian spring festival honouring a fertility goddess, and which was still being observed in first century Rome. (That is the KJV defenders point on this verse, which is not shown in the article.)

The reference to the Online Greek Interlinear text at scripture4all.org [1] is not valid. It claims to be the original text, but also identifies its Greek text as WHNA, namely Westcott & Hort 1881, which is the Alexandrian text mentioned above, on which all of the modern Bibles are based and upon which the KJV is not. From scripture4all.org itself, Greek Text : WHNA: Westcott-Hort text from 1881, combined with the NA26/27 variants. (only NA26/27 variants visible) Translation : Authorised Version. (be aware that AV is based on the TR and not WHNA) Note that Bible correctors are famous for showing how the KJV disagrees with the "original Greek" (for the NT) and very typically use the WHNA as their basis, which is well-known to disagree with the KJV (and the TR) in thousands of places.

The Apocrypha is mentioned as having been included in the 1611 edition, but it was not integrated with the Old Testament, as is found in Catholic Bibles. It was quarantined into its own section between the Old and New Testaments, and seven reasons were given by the KJV translation team, which are not cited in the main article here. These reasons also defend the Apocrypha's subsequent removal. To say that the KJV 1611 had the Apocrypha is fair, if the reasons for its isolation are cited. It would also be appropriate to show evidence that at the Council of Trent, the Catholic Church officially condemned anyone who denied that the Apocrypha was holy writ.

Here are the reasons, for reference, though I have to find its verifiable source, which I think is published in a book called Translators Revised. This particular citation is from Sam Gipp's Bible Answer Book, chapter 36, [2]

  • 1. Not one of them is in the Hebrew language, which was alone used by the inspired historians and poets of the Old Testament.
The choice of language is not sole justification for whether something is inspired / true. Michael.Pohoreski 19:07, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
They were written in Greek, the lingua franca of educated mediterranean Jews in the last few centuries BC, and the language of the New Testament
Actually, if you take a moment to examine, the language would be a reason to why it isn't inspired/true. I know that this may be conjecture, but the whole Old Testament was written for and by the people of God in their tongue. The same goes for the NT, only this time, the common language was Koine Greek and the people is now "whosoever". The history of the english translators is indeed one bathed in blood, and we can see that at the time of the translation that English had reached a peak, one that no other language had ever achieved. True that the every day reader isn't apt to understand it, but let us remind ourselves who the Bible is for: the born-again believer. The fact that unsaved people can't understand it is only because the Bible is written in a language that is not the language of sinners. Listen to the people around you. The english in the Bible is not their english, and their english should definitely not be our english. The Bible isn't written for someone who wants to just get a pet answer on a subject or someone who wants to look for contradictions. It was written for the believer to study and learn and grow.
  • 2. Not one of the writers lays any claim to inspiration.
  • 3. These books were never acknowledged as sacred Scriptures by the Jewish Church, and therefore were never sanctioned by our Lord.
Santification by the Lord is a fallacy, as there is no offical Jewish Church. Did you mean Christian Church ? Michael.Pohoreski 19:07, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
I think he meant the Jewish people. And notice that Jesus always referred to the Scriptures as "the law and the prophets", whereby he sanctioned the Old Testament.
They were regarded as scripture by Jews at the time of Christ. They were rejected by Jews well after the Church had been founded.
Is that just the conjecture of a scholar, or is it well grounded? Remember there is a 400 year period between Malachi and Matthew, and of course the Jews were going to be run down by Jewish apostates if now all the prophets were dead. In Hosea, we see that God's people "are destroyed for lack of knowledge." And if I was to have a manuscript that is said by many to be the true Words of God, but it was proven a fake, of course I would reject it. One MS based on conjecture isn't going to convince me.
The Book of Enoch was never sanctified by the Church, yet it was found in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Michael.Pohoreski 19:07, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
One MS doesn't constitute anything. Just like you can't base a doctrine on one verse of the Bible. All Bible doctrines have more than one verse to build on it. Just like the Majority Text has 3,000 extant MSS to attest to it's credibility, while the Alexandrian manuscripts can't even agree among each other.
  • 4. They were not allowed a place among the sacred books, during the first four centuries of the Christian Church.
    There was no defined canon until the late 4th Century AD.  Until that point, each book was held sacred in different areas and individually. 137.112.139.167 (talk) 03:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC) Praeceptor D. Iosephus Thomas Aquinas Esques
  • 5. They contain fabulous statements, and statements which contradict not only the canonical Scriptures, but themselves; as when, in the two Books of Maccabees, Antiochus Epiphanes is made to die three different deaths in as many different places.
Many scriptures on the orthodox cannon contradict themselves too. Contradiction is not a sole justification for exclusion. Michael.Pohoreski 19:07, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Contradiction is a sole justification. You say that there are contradictions in the Orthodox canon, but what are they? Is that conjecture? Just because someone says that pigs can fly doesn't mean I'll believe them. There has to be evidence. Many people have provided evidence for contradictions in the orthodox canon, but they failed in one thing. The Bible says it itself has to be rightly divided (2 Timothy 2:15 KJV), and that's why people see contradictions. But if an unsaved person just looks for it without knowing this biblical principle, of course he'll see what he perceives to be a contradiction.
  • 6. It inculcates doctrines at variance with the Bible, such as prayers for the dead and sinless perfection.
Did the author forget about 1 Cor. 15:29 baptism of the dead?
Did the writer forget that Paul wasn't endorsing the act, nor did he ever preach about it?
You could say that they are the at variance with the Bible; you could say they are part of the Bible. Prayers for the dead are accepted by the majority of the world's Chistians (Catholic and Orthodox) as doctrine.

Michael.Pohoreski 19:07, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

The majority of the world's Christians aren't Catholic or Orthodox. According to the Bible, Catholics aren't Christians. According to the Bible, neither are Orthodox's. They are just denominations, and nothing more. Christians are those that are born-again, and see their final authority as the Bible, which is the Word Of God. The Word of God does not advocate these practices, so to say that a Christian, if your going to use the correct sense, advocates such acts as described, is erroneous.
This is not the place for you to declare what your denomination considers Christian. By the same Bible (as well as Sacred Tradition), some Traditionalist Catholics would argue that Protestants are not Christians. However, this is not the place for religious debate; it is a scholarly, impartial article. Also, these apocrypha are from the Septugiant translation of the Old Testament which originated around 280 BC. This translation is quoted many times in the New Testament. The seven books were removed at a late 1st Century AD council by the Pharisees (with some pressure from the Romans). Research the canon of the Etiopian Jewry; it still has those seven books. 137.112.139.167 (talk) 03:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC) Praeceptor D. Iosephus Thomas Aquinas Esques
  • 7. It teaches immoral practices, such as lying, suicide, assassination and magical incantation.
Does it "teach" them, or just describe them?

Most importantly, there is nothing in this entire article showing scriptural changes from the KJV to its modern-day opponents, which is the primary argument. A few examples off the top of my head:

  • 1. The Deity of Jesus Christ is attacked in various places in all of the modern versions (see Gen 22:8, Mic 5:2, 1Tim 3:16, Heb 1:8), despite the identification with antichrist in 1Jn 4:3 for making such denial, and likewise references to worshipping Jesus Christ (Luke 24:52);
  • 2. The Trinity is attacked. Most modern versions delete 1Jn 5:7 and then split either v6 or v8 to make a counterfeit v7. When this is done in a business contract it is called 'fraud';
  • 3. The virgin birth is attacked, by altering Isa 7:14, despite its quotation in Matt 1:23;
  • 4. The doctrine of a literal fiery burning hell is attacked, by changing the word 'hell' to words such as 'depths', 'grave', 'hades', etc. The NIV for example also deletes quotations of Jesus Christ in Mark 9:44 and Mark 9:46, Where their worm dieth not and the fire is not quenched.;
  • 5. The divine promise for the preservation of scripture is attacked by replacing Psa 12:7, mostly in the form of changing them (KJV) to us (modern);
  • 6. The salvation of the repentant thief is attacked by removing Lord from Luke 23:42;
  • 7. The first Gentile salvation recorded in scripture, the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8:26-39), is attacked by most modern versions deleting all of Acts 8:37, his saving testimony, which also sets the Biblical requirement for Believer's Baptism, ...If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest...;
  • 8. The salvation of St. Paul is attacked, by altering Acts 9:6;
  • 9. The blood atonement of Jesus Christ is attacked in several places, one example being the removal of through his blood from Col 1:14;
  • 10. Salvation as a one time, permenently settled event in the life of any believer is attacked by inserting the word being into 1Cor 1:18;
  • 11. The ascencion of Jesus Christ is attacked by removing and carried up into heaven from Luke 24:51, despite Luke's own reference to the ending of his Gospel in Acts 1:2;
  • 12. Salvation as a prerequisite for being in heaven is attacked by removing of them which are saved from Rev 21:24, a book which in itself contains an explicit warning against adding unto or taking away from its text (Rev 22:18-19).

While this is only a summary of attacks (after which the Chick tract is so named), I do believe that this article definitely needs a section devoted to this matter. It is after all, the changes to doctrine which fire up this so-called 'movement' in the first place. Therefore, its first and primary argument ought to be given first, and then its opposing views. The article ought to summarize various bedrock doctrines of Christianity and quote the referenced verses from the KJV and its opponents. None of this is here-say: all of these doctrines are well-known, and in every case, the verses can be produced and the changes shown. Surely the KJV deserves a reasonable opportunity to defend itself.

  • All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: - 2Tim 3:16

06:05, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

IP 71.66.107.45 (now User Theo5)

I reverted IP 71.66.107.45's extensive edits. He certainly has enthusiasm, but unfortunately the end result of all his edits reads like a not-particularly-effective 10th-grade essay.

Dear IP 71.66.107.45 -- if you want to work on this article, then preferably start by getting a Wikipedia User account, and please start small (working on the subsection you think you can best improve), rather than completely remaking the whole article all at once with your sream-of-consciousness flow... AnonMoos

stop retroactively editing my remarks

It's hard to work up enthusiasm to hold a discussion with you, when you insist on retroactively editing my past remarks. If you're so paranoid about your "privacy", then you should have edited using a Wikipedia user account from the beginning, since the IP number is in the page histories, and will remainn there indefinitely. AnonMoos 04:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Stop falsely accusing others

As far as I know the only deletion of anything that others have said that I have made, is that I masked out my own IP, which you insisted on putting back in. In the first place, that kind of conduct is rude, and second it is unfair.

Further, it is innacurate to imply that just because I had wanted some privacy, that I have altered other of your content in the criticism page.

details

Hi, I have done as requested. I thought there were many points which I left unchanged, but I did add details. I can take a slower approach. I will look forward to learning how what I am writing can be improved. Theo5

Origins of the King-James-Only movement

I will begin in the section "Origins of the King-James-Only movement". The article -as currently reverted to, implies that the process of watching over versions of the Bible had its origins in the response to the Revised Version of 1882.

The paragraph currently reads:

"The origins of the King-James-Only Movement can be traced back to the publication of the Revised Version (RV). The original commission of the RV intended it as an update to the archaic language of the KJV. The updaters surpassed that goal, eventually re-translating thousands of words and passages. In the New Testament, they often translated a different Greek text, to conform with the theories of British churchmen and scholars Brooke Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort and their Alexandrian text. Public outcry against the RV was not few and far between at the time, with opponents preaching fidelity to the KJV. A prominent critic, churchman John William Burgon wrote several books and articles criticising the RV; his books (notably The Revision Revised) are still being reprinted and his arguments often cited by KJV supporters."

The origins of the King-James Only Movement can be traced back much farther back in time, to the time of King James and earlier. -- User:Theo5

I'm not sure what that means -- people in 1611 were used to the idea of multiple English translations (the Bishop's Bible, the Geneva Bible, etc.). In 1611, the KJV was the new definitive translation for loyal English Protestants, but it was accepted precisely because it was an official "Authorized version" (i.e. endorsed by the government, and representing the last word in then current scholarship in Greek and Hebrew). In the modern period, the King-James-Only movement is opposed to new translations precisely because they're officially-endorsed by "mainstream" Protestant denominations, and represent current modern scholarship. So modern KJV-Only Christians reject new translations for very similar reasons to those which caused English Protestants to accept the KJV. So I'm not really sure where the "continuity" is... AnonMoos 04:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

As it stands now, the article marrs the historic continuity of a movement - (to call it that for the moment) that has a longer genealogy. -- User:Theo5

Really? Some English-speaking Christians have always favored the KJV translation, but there were few effective alternatives before the 1880's, and this didn't really emerge as an active and controversial issue until the brouhahah over the translation of Isaiah 7:14 in the RSV in 1952. Passive acceptance of the KJV from 1611-1885 does not constitute a "movement". AnonMoos 04:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

The article should include the following:

The origins of the King-James-Only Movement can be traced back to the Protestant Reformation. Protestant Reformers had been resisting the Papal Bulls and laws that forbade the people to have a translation that was not authorized by the Vatican. The Reformation (1517-1688) brought about many changes to Biblical studies, and highlighted the problems of textual accuracy in the faithfull transmission of the Bible. In order to address these issues, Calvin Delegated the task of the oversight of Bible translation to two Men: Olivetain and Theodore Beza (Theodore de Beze). It was under the direction of Beza that the Geneva Bible was produced for an English speaking audience. One of the more significant books on the issue of which version is the "authentic" version was "A defence of the sincere and true translations of the Holy Scriptures into the English tongue, against the cavils [false accusations] of Gregory Martin" By William Fulke (It was republished by Cambridge University press in 1843). The Roman Catholic Church responded to the use of the Geneva Bible by proceeding with their own translation in English. The result was the Douay-Rheims version, which was completed by 1610.

The process of ensuring the integrity of the Biblical text and its underlying textual basis is longstanding within Protestantism. This tendency to take no version for granted accounts for the Protestant editions issued in many modern languages, as well as the production of Bibles in Latin and Greek, as far back as the 1500s (at least). -- User:Theo5

The above is general background information to a history of English Bible translations, but I don't see what specific direct connection it has to the King-James-Only movement. AnonMoos 04:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

In the 1800s, German Textual Criticism had gained ground in England. The result was a growing concern that the King James might contain errors. In order to contend with this issue in light of the claimed historic advances in manuscript and textual studies, the British Parliament authorized a very mild revision of the King James Bible. It was the intent of Parliament that the changes that would be made to the King James Bible would be minor.

The original commission of the RV intended it as an update to the archaic language of the KJV...

Theo5

WHY the KING JAMES ONLY MOVEMENT rejects modern translations

Here is what was written:

"In the modern period, the King-James-Only movement is opposed to new translations precisely because they're officially-endorsed by "mainstream" Protestant denominations".


reply: You would have to prove that. You would have to show direct quotes, direct cause and effect between the 1. rejection by KJVO (Abreviated as KJVO on this page for the sake of brevity) of the modern versions, and 2. the KJVO explanations of their rejections of modern versions BECAUSE they are officially endorsed by "mainstream" Protestant denominations.


- However, even if you could find such explanations in passing, the reason why KJVOs reject Modern versions is because the Modern Versions are innacurate, NOT because the official versions are endorsed by "mainstream" Protestant denominations. Most KJVOs would not care who endorsed a particular version, if their own conclusions were that the Version in question were accurate. Therefore to suggest that

"In the modern period, the King-James-Only movement is opposed to new translations precisely because they're officially-endorsed by "mainstream" Protestant denominations".


implies a cause and effect relationship between the conclusions of the KJVOs and the basis upon which that reasoning was made, which is faulty. Theo5

Why KJVOs reject Modern Versions

Here is what was written:

"So modern KJV-Only Christians reject new translations for very similar reasons to those which caused English Protestants to accept the KJV."


As that statement on this page, it seems to suggest several points [if I understood correctly]:

1. The original King James version was the product of serious credible Biblical Research and Scholarship

2. Modern Versions of the Bible are following the same kind of serious credible Biblical research, and

3. THe English Protestants originally accepted the King James version based on serious credible Biblical research, in the same manner that modern versions are dependant serious credible Biblical research and scholarship, which is being used today.


Is that what were you trying to say in the direct quote above ?

reply:

The reason why KJVOs reject modern scholarship is not because of the use of "actual" scholarship, but because the claim that Modern versions are based on Credible research is flawed. Theo5

The Substance of the point

Here is what was written: [yes, I am quoting it again...to point out other information]

In the modern period, the King-James-Only movement is opposed to new translations precisely because they're officially-endorsed by "mainstream" Protestant denominations, and represent current modern scholarship.


reply:

the KJVO movement is Not opposed to new translations because they "represent modern scholarship". The KJVO movement is opposed to modern scholarship precisely because it is not - in the area of Modern Versions - genuine Scholarship. The manuscripts used by the modern scholars are not open to review. The manuscripts used by the modern scholars are not open to the discussion of their origins (which century they came from, who wrote them). The Basis for the Collation of the manuscripts which are selected for use by the Modern Translation Committees of the Modern Versions are Not subject to discussion or peer review. The funding of the Translation Committees working to translate Modern Versions is not discussed, addressed, revealed or disclosed. The paperwork, documentation, articles and other background material that could be used to explain why the choice was made to use or not use a particular manuscript for the translation basis of a particular passage is not disclosed. The method used to select those who are on the Modern Version translation committees is also not disclosed. Most of the actual manuscripts used by the modern translators - for Modern Versions - are not made public. In other words, whether or not the end product is good, the entire process of peer review is bypassed. Since that is what takes place with Modern Transations, it should not be called "scholarship". Any claim to "scholarship" would actually have to be established, something that most Translation Committees are unwilling to do - primarily because it would subject their work to objective peer review.

Contrast the lack of information available concerning Modern Versions and how they were translated, with the amount of information that is - OBLIGATORILY - revealed in the following areas of study where Genuine scholarship IS revealed:

Science, Biology Biotechnology Archeology History

Each of those separate disciplines requires disclosure of the projects, the methodologies used, the backgrounds of each person involved, the basis for the selection of each person to be on the team, the funding which was requested, the funding which was approved, the length of the project, the measures taken to establish peer review, the articles used in the process of their own research, as well as the article produced by those on the projects, their own funding cycles in their respective institutions (which would be the sponsoring agency), how the rights were distributed and/or optioned, what derivative rights exist and how they were treated, what period of time was allowed for both public comment, and professional feedback in the form of Open Peer Review, etc. Those issues are simply basic qualifications for genuine MODERN scholarship. And in the case of Modern Versions of the Bible, they are almost entirely lacking.


The KJVO movement does not object to Modern Versions because Modern Versions and/or Modern Translations are the product of "scholarship". The KJVO movement objects to Modern Versions because they have a Lack of scholarship. (Theo5)


the basis for inclusion of data

Here is what was written:

"The above is general background information to a history of English Bible translations, but I don't see what specific direct connection it has to the King-James-Only movement"

Reply: The KJVO movement claims to be representative of the Earlier scholarship of the KJV. The KJVO movement claims that its roots come from the Protestant Reformation or those who produced an accurate Bible at that time period. Without commenting on the veracity of the claim, the reason why the background material presented above should be included is because it helps to educate those who want to know about what the KJVO movement is and what its claims are. Whatever claims are made by the KJVO movement, those claims should be included in the discussion of the movement. (as with any movement, whatever roots or ancestry is claimed, those claims should be mentioned within the context of an article that would claim - by its existence - to be giving readers an accurate description of what a particular movement is and claims to be). (Theo5)

The paragraph on KJV and the Apocrypha

The paragraph in question currently reads:

The Apocrypha

"One of the ironies of the King-James-Only position is that holders of this position generally reject a substantial proportion of the KJV, namely the so-called Apocrypha. Despite some reservations about its status (expressed in Article 6 of the Anglican Thirty-nine Articles), it was part of all the early editions, and has always been included in the copy given to the King or Queen of the United Kingdom during the coronation ceremony"


The paragraph should be changed. As the paragraph currently stands in the article at present, the information that the 39 articles of the Church of England record objection to the Aprocrypha is noted. However, the information that the translators of the KJV did not regard the Apocryphal books as scripture, has been omitted. The information that the KJV translators did Not regard the Apocrypha as part of the Holy Scriptures is contained in the very preface of the 1611 KJV. As such the opinion of the translators is clear and "on the record" and this information should be included in the article about the persons, methods, and history that the KJVO movement believes itself to be harkening back to.

The Roman Catholic Council of Trent closed its sessions in 1563. The KJV was finished in 1611. The Roman Catholic Council of Trent was the first Roman Catholic Council to declare that the books of the Apocrypha were to be regarded as scripture. There is no official Vatican doctrine regarding the Apocryphal books prior to this, nor had the specific books of the Apocrypha been named by the Roman Catholic Church - as a cohesive unit a) naming all of those books and b) explaining the reasons to Add them to the Bible.


     That is because the contents of Scripture were dogmatically defined at Trent.  Previously, a canon had been set, but it was not infallible teaching that those books and those alone were authentic.  A dogmatic declaration was made at Trent because the Reformation challenged the way the Church held Scripture.  At that time, it also declared the deutrocanonicals (called the Apocrypha by Protestants) as canon.  There are other apocrypha that the Roman Catholic Church considers apocrypha, but that is not what is discussed here.  They also were not added, as editions of the Vulgate before that period had those  books as well (See the article on the Latin Vulgate on Wikipedia). 137.112.139.167 (talk) 02:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC) Praeceptor D. Iosephus Thomas Aquinas Esques

(This last point matters only to point out that the Roman Catholic Church selected less than 15 Apocryphal books in order to included them in the Bible. But it selected these books out of a total of between two hundred and three hundred books that have been claimed by others to be part of the Bible. Although the Council of Trent did declare some Apocryphal books to be scripture and equal to scripture, it did not provide the basis for this declaration, nor any substantiation of the claim, nor any differentiation between 1) the multitude of books of the Apocryphal that it rejected and 2) those it accepted. [Not that it was going to explain itself. The same Council of Trent excommunicated Calvin and Luther and authorized persecution of those who disagreed with the Vatican, about the very issue of Canonization, and several other points [the Council of Trent issued 27 official declarations, many of which contain more than one implication for more than one topic or doctrine].

The paragraph concerning the Apocryphal books should read:


"The King-James-Only Movement generally rejects a portion of the 1611 KJV, namely the so-called Apocrypha. However it should be noted that the original translators of the KJV issued a common preface wherein they made it clear that the Apocryphal books were included in the King James Version, even though they did not regard those books as being either scripture or equal to scripture. That is not surprising when we remember that the claimed canonization of those Apocryphal works, had only taken place less than fifty years before, at the Council of Trent. At that time, Vatican theologians were searching for ways to stop the further erosion of Vatican credibility by excommunicating Luther, Calvin and those who disagreed with the Vatican on its newly adopted Apocryphal books. There is no history of the Roman Catholic Church officially accepting Apocryphal books prior to the Council of Trent (1545-1563).

In rejecting the Canonization and authority of the Apocryphal books sanctioned by the Roman Catholic Church, the King-James-Only Movement today claims consistency and historic continuity with the original translators of the 1611 KJV. The Church of England has also expressed strong reservations about the status of the new books of the Bible that were decided for inclusion into Roman Catholic Bibles more than fifteen-hundred years after Christ. The objections of the Church of England are expressed in Article 6 of the Anglican Thirty-nine Articles. However, in keeping with the work of the KJV translators, the Apocryphal books were part of the early KJV editions. Some have noted that the Apocryphal books have always been included in the copy given to the King or Queen of the United Kingdom during the coronation ceremony, though how to record the contents of each Bible that has been used at the coronation of each monarch since 1611 would seem to be more a matter of conjecture than one of absolute proof."


Of course, if anyone has proof, now would be a good time to provide the basis and the documentation about Each Bible used in each of the Coronations since 1611. (Theo5)

Revert of 81.111.53.26's edits

I just reverted an edit at the beginning of the article by user "81.111.53.26" which could be vandalism as it removed words in an apparently random way about the origins of the "King James Only" name and made hash out of the opening. The words restored are given in bold:

"The King-James-Only Movement is a position usually within Protestant fundamentalist Christianity of English-speaking countries, which rejects all modern translations of the Bible, accepting only the King James Version (KJV), also known as the Authorized Version (AV). The nickname "King-James-Only" apparently originated within a popular book by American church historian and apologist James R. White (b. 1962) published in 1995 entitled The King James Only Controversy."

Since further reference to White remains in what follows in the article, and the deleted words do introduce the reference in what follows, maybe the deletion by 81.111.53.26 was an inadvertent one? --MollyTheCat 00:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Article misses the mark.

This article is a fine example of how too many cooks frequently spoil the broth on Wikipedia. I think this needs to be rewritten largely by one author so that the style is consistent and does not rely overmuch on bullet points as it does now. Although I have read parts of the New Testament in Greek, and I am familiar with the translation issues involved, I'm not a part of this culture and I'm not interested in making any enemies by contradicting beliefs that some hold dear and rewriting. I thought of the following, which may be helpful (unless you are deeply offended by generalizations): 1) The presence of different translations threatens a preaching style which is primarily oral and relies heavily on memorized verses mentally cut and pasted into a sermon. This is similar but not identical to the way the Homeric poets used stock phrases and epithets. 2) Many Fundamentalists may not even realize that the Bible was ever in any other form than the KJV. 3) From a Protestant perspective, anything worth doing should be very difficult. That the KJV is difficult for a modern reader to understand makes it all the more worthwhile. Studying an easy-to-read translation could be seen as "cutting corners." Remember, "anything worth doing is worth doing right." 4) Many people don't know or understand any other language but English and don't understand historical linguistics. Other languages are simply irrelevant to them. This gives rise to some strange beliefs (which I am not making up), such as the idea that the Greek language is simply English transliterated into the Greek alphabet, or that foreigners really know how to speak English and are just playing tricks by "talking foreign." 5)Others may realize that the Bible is a translation, but may believe that a single word in the original corresponds unequivocally to a single English word and that any attempt to deviate from this is deliberate, wrong and may have an agenda. I personally think that the KJV is the most literal and the best-sounding version, but I regret that it is quoted extensively by those who most misunderstand its language. BrianGCrawfordMA 19:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Inaccurate Overgeneralization

"The King-James-Only Movement became one of the core beliefs within the growing Independent Fundamental branch of Baptists."

While there are certainly many Fundamental and/or Independant Baptists who hold to the King James Only beliefs, it is not a core belief.

As this site accurately says at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalism#Christian_views

"Many fundamentalists accept only the King James Version translation of the Bible and study tools based on it, such as the Scofield Reference Bible."

And here this site has an accurate summary of the core beliefs of Christian Fundamentalism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalist_Christianity

"Fundamentalist Christianity, or Christian fundamentalism is a movement which arose mainly within American Protestantism in the late 19th and early 20th centuries by conservative evangelical Christians, who, in a reaction to modernism, actively affirmed a "fundamental" set of Christian beliefs: the inerrancy of the Bible, the virgin birth of Christ, the doctrine of substitutionary atonement, the bodily resurrection of Jesus, and the authenticity of his miracles."

Again, while King-James-Only is a common belief among Fundamental Baptists, it is neither a core nor a universal belief.

True, but I would add that it approaches being an exclusive belief. That is, the only people who hold it are some fundamental, Independent Baptists, usually those who sympathize with Peter Ruckman. It is, however, spread across the country in pockets. Pooua 01:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Authorized Version

I removed the statement that the KJV-only movement is promoting the Authorized Version. In the United Kingdom, the rights to the Authorized Version are held by the British Crown. This contains the Apocrypha which would not be accepted by the current KJV-only movement. Liberty4u 18:49, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Oops. I was wrong. The Apocrypha was removed officially in the mid-19th century. Sorry for any confusion. Liberty4u 03:10, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Clarified it's the 1611 edition KJO advocate

Even before the NKJV there were multiple editions with some minor differences. See the main King James Version article. Joncnunn 19:29, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

This isn't the case in any I've seen. Even Ruckman doesn't use the 1611 KJV (which he claims to use) as KJVO advocates don't use the spellings of the 1611 edition, the apocrypha, or textual variant notes. From my own experience they have used the 1769 KJV, either Oxford or Cambridge editions. They believe the 1769's changes to the 1611 are only in form, not content. Yahnatan 19:34, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Acts 12:4 - Easter or Passover

Translating "Pascha" as "Easter" in Acts 12:4 is a mistranslation, and is regarded by so by all Bible scholars except KJVO followers. All the sites that claim is is proper are almost carbon-copies of each other. I would like to find someone who isn't KJVO who supports this rendering. Yahnatan 13:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

The reference to this should not be removed. The transalation is believed to be correct by some and incorrect by others. The section that this is referenced in is one that indicates that it is, correctly or not, a disputed area. The Chick article indicates that it IS a disputed area and is in fact, the second question answered on the list of questions. This shows that it IS an important popular verse that highlights the controversy. If it were not an issue, this answer would not be so prominent on this site. Liberty4u 14:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
What I don't understand is why people persist with this verse when there is a valid and well reasoned explanation for it: [3]. Seriously, if someone presented some paper published by a well respected expert in mathematics proving that P=NP, people would not persist in claiming that P!=NP. This is the same thing. People refuse to believe that something they hold on to as one of the only straws they have to disprove God's ability to preserve His own word is, in fact, not true. El Cubano 13:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
I did a quick search and found this [4] article detailing why the translation of "Pascha" as "Easter" is incorrect. His article and the others on his site contain a number of ad hominem attacks and his logic is shaky, at best. I am not sure about other Bible scholars (self-proclaimed or otherwise). But, if this is indicative of the quality of argument against Acts 12:4 in the KJV, I find it quite lacking. Can someone point me to a cogent argument, with good logic and without ad hominem attacks, against the KJV rendering of Acts 1:4? El Cubano 20:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
The reason there isn't much on the issue from Bible scholars is because it isn't an issue with them. There is a reason why all modern translations - and several translations before the KJV - translated "pascha" as "Passover". It just makes linguistic sense, and "Easter" does not. (Herod did practice Judaism according to historical records.) Just as there is no debate as to whether the earth is round, most modern scholars don't feel that Acts 12:4 is a debate anymore, and the only ones who argue for "easter" are KJVOs. Yahnatan 13:35, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
So, what you are saying is that they don't have an argument. Becuase even if there is no issue with them, then would not some "right-minded non-KJVO" person point out the flaws in the argument of those who believe that Acts 12:4 should be translated as Easter? If this was a debate at one time in the past, can you point me to a document or article or anything enumerating the arguments and points posed by those in favor of the Passover translation? El Cubano 14:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

There are many and widespread criticisms of this rendering (not to mention that the arguments given on the Jack Chick website are utter hogwash) amongst many denominations including Jehovah's Witnesses (who used the KJV prior to their publication of the New World "Translation"), many of the "Churches of God", and other groups of this type that reject "Easter" as either a pagan or Popish addition to the text to justify the celebration of what groups such as these regard as a false feast. Your request for more details while ignoring Liberty4u's cogent point that the very existence of the article on Jack Chick's website CLEARLY demonstrates that this is a controversial translation. If it were not a controversial translation, Chick wouldn't bother to have a whole page dedicated to the defense of the rendition. I would think this would be patently obvious to anyone who has bothered to read the absurdity on the Chick website.--Nicodemus75 10:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

The argument that "because it is defended on Jack Chick's website, it is clearly controversial" is a non-sequitor. Thus, Liberty4u's point is not cogent. In fact, it is ridiculous. That is like saying that "becuase the beef industry argues that people should eat more beef, choosing to eat beef is controversial." For example, in the Reina-Valera version of the Bible, it is translated as Pascua. Now, in Spanish, the word Pascua is used to denote: 1) the Jewish Passover; 2) the Christian celebration of Christ's Ressurection (today commonly called Easter); 3) the time from Christmas to Three Kings' Day; 4) Pentecost. Does that mean that the RV Bible is ambiguous because Acts 12:4 could be interpreted as a reference to the Christmas season? No, the translators used the best word available. In England, at the time the King James Bible was translated, the word Easter provided the best translation that made clear to people of the time that Herod imprisoned Peter after the Passover meal, and that he was to be killed after that. It is clear from the context. In English, Passover means the Jewish Passover. El Cubano 15:40, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
I do not know why someone would want to bury this argument. The Chick website tackles this topic head-on whether you think that article is good or bad. Trying to sweep an issue under the rug by removing it from the discussion, as was originally attempted, does not seem like the best approach. If the issue is "already clearly argued" then documenting both the issue and the refuting argument would be helpful on Wikipedia for someone who was researching the issue. The logic of removing the issue, to me, would only be a tactic if you could not refute an issue with evidence and logic. Taking the issue head-on, would be courageous and confident. Liberty4u 12:52, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
I certainly do not want to bury the argument. Based on what I had read, I that this had been refuted soundly. Now, I am told, there is an argument about this. Since the site was listed as "problematic verse," it gives the impression that there is a problem, but without treating both sides of the issue. If someone can produce a link to a good argument by a respected Bible scholar on why Acts 12:4 should not read Easter, then I am in favor of presenting both sides. (Sorry for not signing my above post earlier.) El Cubano 15:40, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I have another question about this. Is every single Greek word that appears in the NT translated exactly the same way every time that it appears? If so, I can see how the argument against Acts 12:4 could stand. However, if it is not the case, I don't see how the argument that a word was translated such and such a way over here and a different way over there holds water. El Cubano 18:52, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Seeing as how no one has:
  • provided a salient argument from a respected Bible scholar as to why Acts 12:4 in the KJV is a mistranslation; or
  • Pointed out a significant Greek word in the NT that appears a comparable number of times and is translated exactly the same way into English each time
I move that Acts 12:4 be removed from the list of "problem verses." If someone doesn't come up with good justification soon, I will go ahead and remove it. El Cubano 22:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
It is a problem verse precisely because every major modern translation - and some of the older ones - renders the passage as "Passover". Most scholars have felt it was unnecessary to write long critiques because it is not even an issue in Biblical scholarship. To a man, the citations you are KJV Onlyists who consider all modern Bibles to be corrupt works of the Devil, so naturally they would find a way to defend the KJV rendering of a passage. Again, since every modern translation uses "Passover", this is a controversy, KJVO articles notwithstanding. Yahnatan 22:30, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
As I said, I will accept that this is a controversy. However, if you cannot produce a single written work by any Bible scholar throughout history defending the "Passover" translation, then at least point me to a Greek work, (not some article or trivial word) that appears a comparable number of times and is rendered exactly the same in English every single time it appears. I can't help but get the feeling you are simply avoiding the question becuase you don't have an answer. El Cubano 22:42, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Since it has been more than a week and no one has been able to produce even the slightest hint of an argument by any Bible scholar at any time throughout history as to why Pascha in Acts 12:4 should not be translated as Easter, I will shortly remove it from the list of problem verses. El Cubano 16:57, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not there is a justified concern is immaterial to whether there is a concern. The above Jack Chick reference shows that. To claim that it should be removed because the argument is weak or invalid would be original research. JoshuaZ 21:37, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
What you say does not make sense. I am not trying to conduct original research. I simply want a reference indicating why this is a problem verse. That is, I understand that there is a concern. However, every valid argument I have read defends quite well the translation of Easter in Acts 12:4. Now, where I disagree with its inclusion in this list is that the claim that the translation Easter is a problem is baseless. For example, please look at the article on the Age of the universe. Now, many Christians with fundamental beliefs (myself included) have a different idea about the age of the universe. Based on your argument, since most scientists denounce the idea of a young earth, there is a concern and such information should be included in the age of the universe article (hint: it's not there). If we included every single baseless claim by critics, it would be a very long article that was basically worthless. Again, if you (or anyone) can produce something of a an argument by a Bible scholar why the Easter translation is incorrect, I will be open to keeping it in the list of problematic verses (though, I still don't necessarily agree). However, as it currently stands, the sole "reason" for keeping this verse on the list seems to be the presence of a refuting argument which I provided. That seems a bit wrongheaded. El Cubano 23:00, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
It is NPOV and OR to claim that the concern is baseless, and the age of the universe article does say "Various creationist cosmologies have dated creation of the universe at a much different scale. Below is a discussion of the age of the universe according to the Big Bang theory" And again, the fact that most modern translations and many older ones translate it not as easter renders it a problem, your personal concerns not withstanding. JoshuaZ 23:11, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Let me suggest the following reading:

  • Acts 12:4 And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people.
  • The word Passover (#3957 pascha) is translated as Easter. (While this is frequently cited as problematic by critics of the KJV, there is a notable lack of scholarly material in support of the claim.)

Please note, that I am not out to hide or bury the truth. What I want is an accurate presentation of the facts. The fact that every modern translation has translated it as Passover really means nothing if there is no scholarly basis for it. El Cubano 23:41, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and that's precisely the issue, deciding whether there is enough of a scholary basis for it or not is pretty close to OR. All we can do is report here that it is an issue which has been brought up. JoshuaZ 02:38, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
That is precisely where I take issue. Nobody can show me where this has been brought up. Outside of the translations themselves, there is nothing. Looking at the KJV and then comparing to other translations and saying "this is different, there must be a problem here" sounds like OR to me as well, unless there is something to back it up that we can report. As far as I can tell, the way it is phrased now, the statement about Acts 12:4 sounds like OR. Now, I will ask again. If you can produce even one single instance of a Bible scholar throughout all of history contending that Easter is the correct translation, then we will have something to discuss. Otherwise, this is documenting an imaginary problem. El Cubano 03:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, I haven't bothered since the Chick article is enough, but if you really insist on it, give me a day or two and I'll see what else I can dig up (to be clear I am not in any way agreeing that the Chick article is insufficient). JoshuaZ 03:44, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
OK. Let's see what you can turn up. El Cubano 03:52, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand why anyone would even think that "Pascha" should be translated as "Easter." In context, it is talking about Agrippa I's intentions. Contextually, it doesn't make any sense that Agrippa, a Jew, would even be aware of the existence of such an observance as "Easter." There's also the fact that this same word is translated as "Passover" everywhere else in the New Testament in the KJV itself. What about this particular passage makes it likely that it ought to be translated as "Easter" rather than "Passover"? In terms of the claim that this is somehow OR, this is absurd. All the KJV only people explicitly state that this passage is frequently used by their opponents as an example of an error in the KJV. Here is what appears to be an apologetical site that very strongly defends "Passover" as the correct translation. Here's also Easton's Bible Dictionary: Easter - originally a Saxon word (Eostre), denoting a goddess of the Saxons, in honour of whom sacrifices were offered about the time of the Passover. Hence the name came to be given to the festival of the Resurrection of Christ, which occured at the time of the Passover. In the early English versions this word was frequently used as the translation of the Greek pascha (the Passover). When the Authorized Version (1611) was formed, the word "passover" was used in all passages in which this word pascha occurred, except in Act 12:4. In the Revised Version the proper word, "passover," is always used.[5] Also, we shouldn't be linking to article that give this nonsensical Astarte etymology for the word "Easter." It is nonsense - the word Easter is of Germanic origin, and according to Bede, who is the first known person to use the word, derives from a pagan Germanic deity whose festival was around the same time as Easter. I believe linking policy says we shouldn't link to sites that contain blatant inaccuracies. The term "Easter" only exists, as far as I can gather, in English and German (Danish, Swedish, and Dutch all use derivatives of Pascha). Everywhere else, the word for Easter derives from "Pascha", even if a slightly different form is used than the form used for Passover - for instance, French has "Pâques" for Easter and "Pâque" for Passover. john k 07:08, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Passover is used in the following translations: NIV, NAS, ESV, NKJV, ASV, YLT, DARBY, HCSB, NIRV, WE, and NIVUK. Easter is used in KJV and KJ21. CEV uses the term festival. Liberty4u 13:56, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Gentlefolks, I happen to have had the following articles on my web pages for some time now about this verse:
Easter in Acts 12:4
Sidebar: Why Once?
Whether this data will be condemned as the work of "KJV Onlyists who consider all modern Bibles to be corrupt works of the Devil" I do not know. I do know that I have cited some references which may be of interest.
My two cents about the reference in the article (which by and large is a mess IMO as it currently stands--but that's beside the point of this): I think that it should stay in as a commonly-cited "mistranslation." I am with you, El Cubano, about its not actually being so, but it has been regarded so for so long (at least since the time of Matthew Henry, who also misunderstood it) that I think it's fair to include it. Just my opinion.
Peace. -MollyTheCat 23:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I think your point is arguably correct - originally, Easter and Passover were synonymous, or, at least, both could be used to refer to both the Christian and the Jewish festival. Only gradually did a distinction arise, although it would appear that it was already starting to arise, at least, at the time of the KJV. The question of whether the KJV was using a perfectly reasonable alternative word, or if it accidentally followed Tyndale in what was, in Tyndale's time, a perfectly acceptable alternative word, but which wasn't really that so much anymore (I think this latter is probably closer to the case, but it's really a difference in degree more than a difference in kind). The English language has, at any rate, changed considerably since 1611, and various words don't mean now what they meant then. Perhaps "Easter" is one of them - I suppose this would be something for experts on Jacobean English to rule on. What I don't think can be questioned is that in Acts 12:4, the Greek word "Pascha" is being used to refer to the Jewish festival which is now in English called "Passover," and not the Christian festival which is now called "Easter." The ridiculous claims made by many King James Only apologists that the name Easter derives from the goddess Ishtar/Astarte are not credible and should be ignored. john k 22:28, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
John, I tend to side with you on this one. The Easter means Easter because Herod was a pagan argument does not convince me nearly as much as the argument from documented uses of the word found in the Oxford English Dictionary and English Bibles from Tyndale to the KJV (as cited in my articles linked above). It looks like "Easter" settled in as a word for "Passover" because of Tyndale's NT; in fact, "Passover" came to us simply because Tyndale coined it once he started on the Old Testament. I don't think the KJV chose to retain it "accidentally" because I see a clear trend toward reduction of using the word in Bible translations up to 1611, and because the "Translators to the Reader" does state the KJV men's policy of using varieties of words deliberately. "Easter" simply did not stick in the sense of "Passover" beyond 1611 the way it has--as you pointed out--with the analogous words in German, because Tyndale's coinage of the word "Passover" caught on so well. -MollyTheCat 01:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
It seems apparent to me that Easter and Passover were used interchangeably during the time the translation was made (but more so before). I don't think it's appropriate to jump to the conclusion that it was a translation error. Translations are made for a particular language at a particular time. We can't expect the words used in a translation to survive 400 years in a living language without changes to occur to that language. To me, this seems like it's more of a case of confusing an archaic word for an error. Archaic words are not translation errors (although they may appear to be, with our non-Archaic understanding of the word). Kubel 03:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I have not done this with "Easter" vs. "Passover" but it's often interesting to trace in the KJV which translation group did the books with each word in it. The KJV seems to be concordant inside the groups with respect to the words chosen for Gk. terms, but among groups this concordance doesn't hold. The use of "charity" for agape is a good choice, but it is not consistent, and ironically not used in the one place the distinction among different Gk. words would be helpful (when Jesus asks Peter if he "loves" him three times in John's gospel). I imagine there was a good rationale why the group who translated Acts used "Easter", but we don't know it (I don't think it is an error - not with the amount of attention that went into the translation); and if "Passover" appears somewhere else in the KJV text, it's probably a book translated by another group. Scott1329m 11:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I think people on both sides tend to widen the matter until it becomes an issue of error. But there's a more subtle turn to this matter of "Easter" vs. "Pasche/Passover": whether the KJV gives the best rendering. If not, then some modern translations are better in at least some places (viz.,--here). That would in turn mean that the most one can claim for the KJV is that it is generally (but not always) a better translation. But that in like turn would mean that there is no reason not to also use new versions, since they may in fact contain better readings of a given passage. Thus the best strategy for getting the most from the Bible, would be to read many versions (even if generally inferior). And with that, one has departed from KJVO (at least the forms of KJVO that are exclusionary of modern translations). So...the question comes down to: is "Easter" the best possible rendering? 64.234.1.144 13:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

"attacked"

Throughout the "arguments for King-James-Only" section this article uses the word "attacked" to describe translational changes. Even if we are explaining King-James-Only supporters' views, it seems to me that this could be presented in a more NPOV way. Newer translations may translate passages in a way, or analyzes the textual sources in a way, which gives less Biblical support to, say, the divinity of Jesus or the Trinity. But it's ridiculous to actually say that the translations are "attacking" these things. I'm going to edit. john k 06:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm not actually changing it yet, because I'm not sure how it can be phrased better. But it really needs to be changed. john k 06:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it really neads to be changed, but I won't touch it, either. Perhaps saying that the differences "soften" or "weaken" the relevant doctrines would be better. 199.254.216.2 20:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

List of typos from early translations

I keep reading about the 1611 version. Are there actually any existing manuscripts from the original printing? Is there a detailed compilation of typos throughout different printings in the 17th century (e.g. Judas incorrectly printed as Jesus)[6]? How can it be argued that the 1769 version is the intended original? Here are two conflicting quotes. The first from Dial-the-Truth Ministries and the second from God's Secretaries. --J. J. 19:47, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

So if some punk walks up with a smirky grin on his face and asks you, "So which King James Bible do you have, the 1611, the 1629, the 1638, the 1762, or the 1769?", you can simply state that you have a 1769 edition of the King James 1611 Authorized Version.[7]

What was said to be the 'manuscript copy of the Bible' was sold twice in the seventeenth century, once to Cambridge University Press, once to a firm of London printers, but has now disappeared.... When, finally, in the nineteenth century, Dr. F. Scrivener, a scholar working to modern standards, attemted to collate all the editions of the King James Bible then in circulation, he found more than 24,000 variations between them. The curious fact is that no one such thing as 'The King James Bible' - agreed, consistent and whole - has ever existed (Nicolson, 2004, pp. 225-226).[8]

Some further research reveals that Scrivener's 1873 Cambridge Paragraph Bible has a very detailed analysis. It's amazing to me that even in 2005, a New Cambridge Paragraph Bible was published. Reviews on Amazon's NCPB page are actually quite insightful![9] My question about existing manuscripts remains unanswered, though. It would be nice to see a good online summary of NCPB findings, as well. --J. J. 20:27, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
J.J., I don't know that there is any online summary, but Wikipedia does have a New Cambridge Paragraph Bible article which I contributed and others have subsequently edited. You might want to check out David Norton's Textual History of the King James Bible for an exhaustive list of the editing done to his new edition. (Textual History is in fact the companion volume to the NCPB.) -MollyTheCat 11:15, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, I didn't think to look for the NCPB on Wikipedia. I'll see if I can check out those books - unfortunately, none of the public libraries in my area have them. I'd like to see a quote on the NCPB page to compare how the old "supplied words" in italics are now rendered. --J. J. 14:23, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Other LDS Denominations?

Does anyone know if some of the other LDS denominations (e.g. FLDS, Apostolic United Brethren, Community of Christ, Strangite, PLDS, et al.) are also KJV only? Looks like the Strangites don't specifically address the topic (http://www.strangite.org/Scriptures.htm). The CoC (fka RLDS) appear to not be so (http://www.cofchrist.org/walkwithjesus/default.asp).

Jack Chick Publications

It seems to me one of the largers source of KJV-only material is Jack Chick Publications. Numerous tracts either are about the topic or mention it in passing. They also appear to publish a number of books on the topic (http://www.chick.com/catalog/booklist.asp#bbvers). Perhaps a subsection should be added to address this.

Flesch-Kincaid source?

The latest edit on this article removes the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level Indicator "Pro" argument. Does anyone have a source for the NIV/KJV Flesch-Kincaid stats? Note that the original edit (Feb7), as well as the one above, are both from anonymous users. --J. J. 19:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

A confusing con

Could someone who understands this point rewrite it more clearly, or perhaps include a reference to a longer treatise on the point if it's a long argument?

  • If theology "uniquely" taught by the KJV determines how we ought to translate the Bible, this suggests that there is a higher authority than Scripture for teaching revelation, which contradicts the widely held Protestant doctrine of "Scripture Alone." Most KJV-Only Christians claim to uphold this doctrine yet do not see the contradiction.

I think I get the point, but I have to look at it pretty hard and parse it repeatedly to get there, and that's more work then our readers should have to do, IMHO. --Geoff Capp 10:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Links

I changed the link which formerly read "Complete List of Changes in modern versions" to the actual title of the page "Bible Version Comparison Chart". The list is by no means complete, as it includes only removals or changes in the newer versions, but there are also additions (E.g. Colossians 2:9, Acts 4:25). I also added a reference for this. 199.254.216.2 20:10, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

It appears to me that there are several external links pointing to the same domain but different articles/sections within the domain itself. I think these should be shortened to one (1) link to each domain with a description describing the sections/content if needed. For example there are 3 to av1611.org, 2 to givemetruth.net, 2 to chick.com, 2 to studytoanswer.net. That is 9 links to 5 sites. I'm not sure how to word a condensed set of links though. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.113.49.20 (talk) 09:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC).
I would suggest grouping external links by organization, not by individual publications by the organization. Scott1329m 12:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

American-centricity

For a translation that originated in England under a Scottish King, this whole article was written from an American perspective. Wikipedia has readers outside of the USA too! I have tried to make it more NPOV for non-Americans who happen to be in the majority in the world.

(Well, that may be so, but seeing as we Americans won two wars against England, saved England's ass in two others, and invented everything that matters (electric light, automobile, motion picture, television and computer), we have the right to an American perspective!)

Arguing that we beat England in the War of 1812 seems questionable at best. I would say, in response to the original comment, that it is my understanding that the King James Only Movement is overwhelmingly American. john k 02:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Leaving all the military parochialism aside, it is possible (as far as I know) tha thtis is largely or even almost entirely an American phenomenon. If it is, then there's nothing mroe to say, except that. If not, then please go find some non-American material. Mangoe 04:25, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
It is simply because King James only is a phenomenon that exists in the conservative (I would put it as "orthodox" but it would be NPOV to say so on a secular encyclopedia like Wikipedia) sphere of Christendom that is outside the established mainline Protestant denominations such as Reformed/Presbyterian, Anglican/Episcopal, Lutheran, Methodist churches. In the English-speaking world, this leaves the United States and Canada as the major constitutents (in all other English-speaking countries, the size of non-mainline evangelical churches are minuscule, and the "New Christendom" countries/regions like Hong Kong or even to some extent Singapore do not use English versions of the Bible). Simply put, this phenomenon does not appear on the radar screen of, say, New Zealand churches at large. --125.238.97.57 06:27, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Why is this even included?

"It is becoming more apparent that if one reads the KJV they are a KJVO of some sort, because not many would choose the version because of personal taste but rather out of belief and conviction." At best this is mere original research, at worst it's blatant POV nonsense. I know MANY people who prefer the KJV due to the poetry of the langauge, many of whom keep other translations at their side for private Bible study to "correct the dodgy bits" as one put it. Myself among them. The reason most cited that I've seen for using the KJV is personal taste, not burning convictions. Is this an artifact of my Methodist/Epsicopalian experiance? Perhaps, but still the quoted line needs to go.

After several days with no comment, I've fixed that spot

Sourcing

I have strong concers about the pro and against sections sourcing since they seem to be close to OR. Each claim should be sourced to someoen who makes that claim or to a reliable source that mentions the claim.JoshuaZ 21:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The pro/con are bullet-point summaries - each one probably has a book written about it somewhere along the line. It's a highly condensed list of the major points either side would make - I think the documentation for them is the entire References section! A significant difficulty with KJO is the sheer amount of material. A lot of it is oral. So, a full citation of every statement would truly be a mammoth task. I don't personally have most of the sources (particularly on the KJO side), so I am not able to do it. Is it a bad thing, or a good thing, that the encyclopedia article has a condensed summary plus a list of primary sources in References? If it's a bad thing, maybe the article is simply too detailed and needs to be whacked down to a more general overview. KJO is a mammoth subject. Scott1329m 21:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
That formatting is fine, but we should have each bullet sourced- noting which primary source each one comes from would be fine. I'll try to go through a few. JoshuaZ 01:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Removing the "attack" terminology under "Arguments for KJV Only"

The modern versions differences in translation are almost always due to different underlying Greek texts, not some great conspiracy to water down the deity of Christ or any other doctrine. The exact same arguments could be turned against the KJV compared to modern versions. One could say the KJV "attacks" the deity of Christ in John 1:18. The KJV reads, "No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared [him]," whereas the NASB and most modern versions read, "No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained {Him.}"

It is not a matter of one version "attacking" another, it's a matter of which Greek MSS's one finds most reliable. "Attacking" implies malicious intent, which there is no proof of. And as demonstrated above, the principle is not applied equally across the translations... the KJV is somehow exempt from the exact same scrutiny and standards. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Blarnstone (talk • contribs) 23:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC).

Except that the example you cite is not really an attack. Most Christians believe that the Father and Son are both God. So, the rendering the only begotten Son is not really an attack. For an attack, see 1 John 5:7 in the KJV as compared with nearly every modern translation. For another, see John 3:16 in the KJV compared to nearly every modern translation. Those two verses specifically highlight the Deity of Christ, yet are modified in the Alexandrian texts. El Cubano 23:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
The KJV translators chose to use a different Greek text that did not directly ascribe deity to Christ. It is as much of an "attack" as those supposed by the KJVO's. Your very reply proves my point, there is a rabid double standard. KJVO advocates will not apply the exact same logic and standards when looking at the KJV.

Further the longer reading in 1 John 5:7 is the most poorly attested scripture in all the NT. It's earliest manuscript evidence is from the 10th century in a footnote. The earliest MSS that actually has it in the text is from the 15th century. Yet somehow the evil Alexandrian MSS's have corrupted it... even though the majority of the Byzantine forms scripts also leave out the longer reading. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Blarnstone (talk • contribs) 10:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC).

The word Jehovah appears 7 times?

The word Jehovah appears only 4 times in the King James Version in Exodus 6:3, Psalms 83:18, Isaiah 12:2, and Isaiah 26:4. If anyone can locate the other three this article claims to exist in the KJV that would be nice. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.102.255.16 (talk) 21:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC).

The other three are in place-names such as Jehovah-Jireh in Gen 22:14, Ex 17:15, and Jud 6:24 - these are transliterations of the originals - modern Bible translations tend to translate, not transliterate, these names (usually with the traditional transliteration in a footnote) - ironically, the New Jerusalem Bible is the only modern translation I know that transliterates Jehovah. However, the omission of the word "Jehovah" is a major point in most KJO literature - get the Radio Missions "Anti-Christ Bible" material and that is a real complaint. (I don't have an original margin notes version of the KJV - maybe the meanings of the transliterated place-names are in the margin? I need to look in the Geneva Bible notes...) Scott1329m 11:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Me again, if the Tetragrammaton appears hundreds of times then why were only these few areas translated as Jehovah? What's different about those specific verses in the original texts? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.33.224.1 (talk) 14:01, 22 March 2007 (UTC).

This Article Is A Mess

It goes from supporting the King James Only Movement, to brushing it aside, to calling conspiricy. Its like the article has Multiple Personality Disorder. 71.168.56.245 22:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Reflects the movement itself, which is a messy, unorganized, confused, earnest, serious, flaky, true-believing world of its own. The human race has nothing else like it. Independent Baptists, who refuse the Reformation, use theories by an Anglican and the plagazized writings of a Seventh-Day Adventist to support a Bible translation created by Reformed Anglicans/Calvinists under the aegis of a Stuart king who was trying to get rid of the Geneva Bible and Protestantism (and these same arguments were taken up by Protestants in the UK who don't agree with the Independent Baptists), and they do so in opposition to a vast conspiracy of modernists, apostates, New Agers, Communists, and turncoat fundamentalists, with nothing less at stake than the survival of the true Christian religion (although no one can agree on whether that's Calvinism or Independent Baptist free-will-ism), and their mode of reasoning in defending their translation uses every logical fallacy in the book as well as rewriting history. And they do it with a zeal and tenacity that is admirable whether you agree or not. So I defy anyone to write something coherent about this movement. But it is the most fascinating religious movement ever! Scott1329m 11:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


"conspiracy theorists."?

Is this an appropriate wording for Wikipedia? I'm not sure, so perhaps people can weigh in. I realize this article has bigger problems, but, any little bit helps, right? 68.84.220.161 05:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

In this context, yes, it is appropriate because the conspiracy theorists themselves identify themselves as such. Books such as New Age Bible Versions and various online audio files explicitly theorize that modern translations are the work of a grand conspiracy to change Christian doctrine and replace it with ... whatever - New Age, modernism, etc. Since they themselves present themselves as conspiracy theorists, the term is appropriate. Scott1329m 10:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Review request

Full disclosure: I'm not a KJO proponent; in fact, I use mainly the ESV, NASB and interlinear NRSV/USB3. So I'm not neutral on this issue. I have, however, tried to edit the article fairly.

The last two days I've made a number of changes to the article in the following categories: general cleanup (grammatical, punctuation, &c), clarification (where requested, e.g., elaborating the KJO arguments against new versions, &c), correction (on the sources of the RV/new versions text being only W & H, on KJO beliefs, &c), expansion (on the exemplars of the Alexandrian text, on the different kinds of KJO claims made by different adherents &c), toning-down polemical language. I'd like to request a review of the current state of the article; ideally I'd like to see the disputed tag removed. I personally think that the article is fairly objective currently, and represents both sides of the controversy fairly; but then, as I said, I'm personally biased. So please review and comment. Thanks. 64.234.1.144 03:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Bump. 64.234.1.144 22:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
In two days (Sept. 16) I'll remove the pOV tag if there are no objections. 64.234.1.144 23:34, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

POV in "Variations" section

This sentence has been tagged by me:

"Given that the remark is included in an endnote and qualified by the anecdotal introduction 'We have even heard of...', and is not part of his main presentation or a point of criticism of KJO proponents, it is strange that it should be thought of as speculative or controversial."

Despite the weasel words "it is strange," this is clearly an attempt to introduce POV. If there is someone whose statement backing White on this can be cited to counter the criticism, by all means let's add it in. But for the article to attempt to come riding to the rescue by divining what White really meant or how significant he meant it to be is in my view not acceptable. (And FWIW, the claim that it "is not....a point of criticism of KJO proponents" is rich in my non-Neutral POV, since nearly everything White wrote in his potboiler seems to me to be an attempt to criticize and ridicule so-called "King James Onlies." That's my opinion, though, which doesn't belong in the article--and neither does the sentence I just tagged.) --MollyTheCat 23:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

That was my edit, and given that (as I mentioned above) I've a definite POV on this issue, I can accept that I tried to "rescue" the statement. I have no problem with removing or improving it. 64.234.1.144 08:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Pretty Good in the End

I've just read through the article, and almost all of the discussions. I have to say, given the controversial nature of the subject and the varied opinions expressed on this page, I find the article overall well-written and well-balanced. Thanks to all who've kept working at keeping this an informative, instructive and NPOV article. I award you all a smiley-sticker. =) Alan 02:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't mean to imply that there aren't improvements that can be made... Just wanting to encourage you in your work! Alan 02:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

dynamic equivalence position

I have added a little clarification in the section on criticism to the sentence "It is desirable for some that translations be as easy to understand as possible, and not as true to the original text." As it stands, this is a misrepresentation of the position of those who favour dynamic equivalence in translation. Like with literalists, the original text is at the heart of their effort, just with a different focus: They want it to be understood in the target language the way the original readers understood it. For this reason it is sometimes necessary to deviate from the linguistic form of the text, so that the meaning of the text can be preserved in the target language. So, the literal translations strive to preserve the linguistic form of the original text, whereas dynamic translations strive to preserve the meaning. These translators think that this can only be achieved when the meaning is understood by the readers, and therefore, of course, one of their aims is to keep the translation understandable. Landroving Linguist (talk) 12:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

A good example of the effectiveness of the 'dynamic equivalence position ' is in the translation of idioms. I'm too lazy to do this but I know that there are literal translations of idioms from the ancient languages into the KJV English that are meaningless but when translated into an equivalent English idiom suddenly become explicable. Someone with a better grasp of this might know of a good example. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 16:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
For an example of an outmoded idiom; I can't remember where offhand (somewhere in OT), but the KJV uses an expression that just doesn't convey the meaning with literal meaning nowadays; something like, "when the corn is in the ear". The dynamic version, "when the corn is ripe", actually conveys the meaning to modern readers but still remains literal (i.e., it's not just based on some translator's interpretation -- it's the "literal" meaning, just put in a form that modern readers can understand). 64.234.1.144 (talk) 14:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Clarification

Does this sentence

"The KJV Only advocates are split between Independent Baptists and Reformed Protestants (Calvinists) who do not agree between themselves on their theological positions"

mean that the two groups agree internally, but disagree with each other, or that each group disagrees internally? It sounds to me that probably the first meaning is intended, in which case would it be better as

"The KJV Only advocates are split between Independent Baptists and Reformed Protestants (Calvinists), whose theological positions differ"

Colonies Chris (talk) 12:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, how is this a criticism of the KJV? First it states that it has sound translation and pure doctrine, and other translations are corrupt. Then it talks about KJV only supporters that come from different theological viewpoints. I fail to see how this can be construed as a logical criticism of the KJV only position.

"The KJV is said to be a theologically sound translation which maintains pure doctrine, where modern translations are corrupt in this respect. The KJV Only advocates are split between Independent Baptists and Reformed Protestants (Calvinists) who do not agree between themselves on their theological positions." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.28.31.218 (talk) 21:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm..."LDS and Baptists both agree that Jesus was a historical person"...but that doesn't mean they agree about any other point of doctrine. The purpose of the statement is to convey that people who agree about KJO don't necessarily agree about other issues; rather, they disagree about other issues to such an extent that denominational lines are drawn. It's not an argument for or against the KJV, merely a description of the state of affairs about the matter. I think Chris' wording is clearer. » MonkeeSage «

Catholic Doctrine

Information concerning Bible Translations that supposed favor "unbiblical doctrines" should be added. For example, the fact that all translations used by the Church in Englsih-speaking countries (NAB, RSV and NRSV [as references only]) all contain "which is interpreted Peter" (or something similar) in John 1:42. It should also be mentioned that the only translation of the Bible the Curch has declared to be free of errors concerning faith and morals was the Latin Vulgate; other translations are approved for use in Mass.


137.112.139.167 (talk) Praeceptor D. Iosephus Thomas Aquinas Esques —Preceding comment was added at 02:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.