When the Bible Becomes an Idol: Problems with the KJV-Only Doctrine

http://www.atlantaapologist.org/kjv.html ^

[american colleen]

...the history of the development of the Bible...

Whaa? This topic is getting stranger and stranger!! Seems like the Bible was codified in the 390s and "development" shoulda stopped by and at that time. And what exactly is "the history of the development of the Bible" anyway?

[american colleen]

Well ya, that much even I figured. But a poster says the bible didn't exist before, 1. the KJV and then, 2. the Geneva version. Those poor schmucks who used the "wrong" or even non-existent Bible from 397 until 1557!

[The Bard]

Prior to the King James Bible of 1611, there was not a “Bible” as we know it.

Sorry, but that's simply not true. The Geneva Bible pre-dated the KJV by 50 years, which by the way was also translated from the Majority Texts.

I would argue somewhat on this. From what I've been finding, the Geneva Bible dates 1599, so while it did predate the King James, it was not by 50 years.

Second, I still stand my my statement. As I have never done an indept study on the Geneva Bible, I may not have all my facts correct. From what I have read, it was the first to start using the the Chapter/verse numbering, so cross referencing it with a King James (or other bibles) might be easy enough. It included up to 300,000 additional words of Commentary (increasing the size by up to 1/3). While it would be a wonderful study tool, these comentary were in the margins, not in the form of footnotes or study helps at the back of the book.

I don't know if modern copies of the Geneva Bible has put this into a modern format for readers, but for me to pick up one of the original Geneva Bibles and compare it to my Bible today, it would be "different". Not to say that it wouldn't be a wonderful study tool (as my interest has been tweaked into getting a copy), but I believe it would have a different feel from bibles in use today. I have a copy of a 1611 King James. While some of the spelling is different, when compared to a King James of today, it is still a word for word match (scripturally).

Of course I may be wrong, and if so, will gladly admit it and will update my notes. I try to make sure that my research is as accurate as possible. I would have to agree that it appears there was nothing closer to our modern day bibles than the Geneva Bible, and in regards to it using majority texts shows that it was not a "puppet" bible that the Catholic church wanted put out, Of course, from what I have studied, the Catholic church in general was against anyone having a bible during those times. That has somewhat changed today.

BTW, I don't know if you are aware of this website, but check it out: http://www.tribulationforces.com/bible.shtml. In additionto the King JAmes online, they have an online version of the 1599 Geneva Bible. It is not the full Geneva Bible, but it does contain the specific verses of each book of the Bible in which a margin note applied.

[A. Patriot]

OK, but what were people using before the 1550s? Like, where did all those chained up phone book Bible stories come from if the bible didn't exist before then?

The Tyndale Bible

[A. Patriot]

Whaa? This topic is getting stranger and stranger!! Seems like the Bible was codified in the 390s and "development" shoulda stopped by and at that time. And what exactly is "the history of the development of the Bible" anyway?

Sorry, bad use of terms. What I meant was that the history of how the present day Bible has come down to us is taught. (ie: the different versions, especially the English language versions)

We all know that nothing should have been added or taken away from the original texts.

When you say "codified" do you mean "put into chapter and verse"? Or do you men "cannonized"?

[Wallace T.]

Beyond the Ruckmanite cult and the LDS Church, there are two distinct groups of KJV advocates. The hard core group, mostly represented in Independent Baptist circles, with representative advocates like Gail Riplinger and institutions like Anderson-Hyles College in Indiana, believe that the KJV is itself as divinely inspired and as perfect as were the original autographs.

The soft core group, which has advocates among independent Baptists, some Holiness and Pentecostal believers, and very conservative Presbyterians, especially in the Reconstructionist camp, cast doubt upon the accuracy of the modern scholarly texts, as they combine doubtful manuscripts of Alexandrian origin, or from the Vatican archives, with the "purer" Antiochian text from which the Textus Receptus was derived. To them, non-English translations such as Luther's German Bible and the Spanish Reina-Valera, and even the New King James version, are good translations because they are based on "good" (Textus Recptus) manuscripts.

The hard core group is extra-Biblical in believing that the KJV translators were uniquely divinely inspired. The soft core group has premises that are more intellectually defensible. It is worthy to note that study Bibles associated with the most conservative theologians, such as John MacArthur (Calvinist and dispensational), R.C. Sproul (Reformed), and W.A. Criswell (conservative Southern Baptist) used the NKJV text.

[fishtank]

Bill Gothard is either KJV only or very close to it.

[irishtenor]

Aw, come on, ping ftd. Please? I'd love to hear his comments on this :>)

Note: I would, but I ain't speaking to him:>(

[Wrigley]

I'm kind or surprised that he hasn't popped up yet.

But, your wish is my command.

fyi ping ftd

[Frumanchu]

As I recall, the 1599 Geneva was the second or third revision (read 'easier to read'). Whether by 12 years or 50, it still doesn't change the fact that your statement was false :)

[snerkel]

Adding, the first English translation was complete in 1382 by John Wycliffe.

[Gamecock]

LOL!

[Gamecock]

LOL!

[nobdysfool]

fyi ping ftd

Aw, man, this was a nice. gentle and scholarly conversation we have going here....why'd ya wanna go and mess it up? :o)

[Ryan Bailey]

The issue of Biblical Translation Fundamentalism is essential to our faith. At it's base is the question of what you as an individual believe. Perhaps more important academically, the issue raises the invariable question of what individual ministers believe it is that they minister, and from whence comes their authority so to do. This is today mostly a non-issue because the unfortunate majority of ministers of the so-called "gospel" are actually preaching their own gospel of socio-political advocacy and would actually do better to move into that line of work, preferably after gaining some credentials, and stop impersonating priests. The simple and incontrovertible fact is that the AV1611 is the only true Bible, by this we refer to the one and only Holy Bible authorized for the Church of England by His Majesty King James the VI, and I, for which he was almost exploded in the gunpowder plot credit to the satanic devices of Roman Popery. Our premises in this simple scientific question must be straightforward; given that there does exist a God, and given that the same God has somewhere in time communicated anything with mankind, would there exist today a record of it? For every true Christian the answer is resoundingly affirmative. I do not believe in a God that would give us His Holy Word as a rule and guide for our living and faith only to let it fall into the corruption of a thousand translated copyrighted rags derived on the confidence of popery. The simple facts are these, and you will not learn this in any seminary in the world although it is a common sense deduction; any minister who does not acknowledge the AV1611 has no authority on which to preach save that of his contrived priesthood, furthermore any minister who uses an English Translation other that the AV1611 is a de facto servant of H.H. the Pontiff, Self Proclaimed Vicar of Christ on earth. If you who disregard the AV1611 as antiquated would ask your master the Pontifex Maximus where the word of God is, he would point to himself, because he cannot err, according to his own decree in the nineteenth century, when speaking ex cathedra. Not only is the pontiff sole propreitor of the word of God for all Romanists, but he technically is God for all Romanists. Why do modern Christians need the real God when they have there master in Rome. Make no mistake, if the AV1611 is the only version translated without the use of the Vaticanus manuscripts, which no one outside the Vatican hierarchy has ever laid eyes on but only been furnished with copies, then it is certainly the only version free of the vile touch of Satan. Every modern so-called Protestant Christian must ask himself; is the Vatican the place that I will put my trust for the true word of God?

[Bellflower]

Ping for later read. You seem to misunderstand the issue of the scripts and have vastly oversimplefied the issue.

[dsc]

What planet are you from? Your planet seems to have an institution called the Roman Catholic Church that bears no resemblance whatsoever to the Roman Catholic Church on this planet.

[jboot]

OMG, where did you copy this from? I especially like this howler:

"Make no mistake, if the AV1611 is the only version translated without the use of the Vaticanus manuscripts, which no one outside the Vatican hierarchy has ever laid eyes on but only been furnished with copies, then it is certainly the only version free of the vile touch of Satan."

The Church lady could not have done better!

Oh-you're serious? Never mind...

[drstevej]

***Every modern so-called Protestant Christian must ask himself; is the Vatican the place that I will put my trust for the true word of God?***

Just wait til Pope Piel I is elevated... a Calvinist dispensationalist who prefers the greek and hebrew text over the 1611-KJV.

BTW, I am on vacation right now and there is some mixed bathing going on here and I have not organized a protest.

[nobdysfool]

Well, now...isn't that SPECIAL???