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

RnMom to ctd: Point me in the direction of ONE ARMINIAN church that came directly from Rome at the reformation..Just one.Name one that left Rome to protest doctrine..Just one

...(sounds of crickets chirping)...(more crickets chirping)...(chirp-chirp)...(chirp)...

Sorry, I wasn't suggesting that you had called it a 'claptrap'.

No bother.

Probably my fault for over-reacting, anyway (actually, my reaction would have been proper, I think -- except that you were not, in fact, attributing to me a callous disrespect for the KJV at all; I just took it that way). Anyway, consider my apology offered.

I was alluding en passant to the fact that the KJV itself was criticized for being 'too common' in comparison to the Bishops and Geneva and other, perhaps more stately, translations. But we should expect in any event that any new bible will offend some because they like their safe and known bibles, the bible they grew up with. These are mere reactionaries who do not wish to examine the merits of the text and translation.

Well, in terms of partisan preference (particularly in regard to English Puritans and Scot Covenantors who fled to America to escape Anglican Totalitarianism), you're probably right that many of the Early American Colonists were congenitally-opposed to the King James Version -- i.e., not only is the 1560 Geneva a perfectly good Masoretic/Textus-Receptus Translation itself, but it:

A.) Pre-Dated the 1611 King James; and...
B.) Was commissioned by the Reformed Church, not an Earthly King; and...
C.) Did not imply any allegiance to the English Monarchy. (Indeed, the Geneva was perceived to be detestably Republican in tone)

Admitting as I do the Calvinistic doctrine of God's absolute sovereignty over the affairs of man and nations, it is not above me to admit such "material" factors as Scottish and Puritan opposition to the English Monarchy in recounting the Colonial American preference for the 1560 Geneva over the 1611 King James. "Mere reactionaries" aside, the Political circumstance of Colonial America was such that choosing the Geneva Bible over the King James amounted to a declaration of revolutionary sentiments -- "We must obey God, rather than Men" (Acts 5:29).

All that said, my intention is not to demean the King James Version... among commonly-available English-translation Bibles today, the King James is one of the best -- indeed it may be the best, it's only possible competition being the old American Standard (the best and most-rigorous of the "modern" translations).

And if the standard were to be, "By what standard shall Christian Children hide God's Word in their hearts?" (you know us Presbyterians... with our Infant Baptism and Children's Communion), then I can only recommend the King James. Speaking from youthful experience, a Christian Child can memorize the righteous poetry of the King James like honey upon the tongue, whereas the American Standard is like beach-sand -- fairly clean, but dry and tasteless. And the New International and New King James and the Living Bible and all the rest are chaff for the fire, by all comparison.

In the absence of a several-hundred-dollar copy of the 1560 Geneva (such as our Colonial Fathers enjoyed), any modern Christian Parent would be a fool to read his child any version but the King James -- I will say that much.

BTW, in that list of 'famous KJVers', I suspect Knox must be bogus. Surely he almost had to be a Geneva man.

Well, John Knox died in 1572, so it's relatively certain he preferred the 1560 Geneva (and before that, probably one of the Swiss-Lutheran Translations) rather than the 1611 King James... unless we presume that he "accessed" the 1611 King James via his historically-documented Gift of Prophecy.

(Actually, I only bring this up because it is an Item of Interest between CCWoody, myself, "the_doc", and other Calvinists. The majority of Presbyterians are Cessationists -- believing that both Special Inspiration and Miraculous Gifts have ceased. "The_doc" and Myself are, instead, moderate Continuationists, believing that Special Inspiration has ceased but that the Miraculous Gifts are still employed by the Spirit on rare occasions. CCWoody is perhaps a somewhat-more enthusiastic Continuationist, believing that the Miraculous Gifts have NOT ceased, and will indeed flow freely in the Latter Days -- but he differs from the Charismatics in his affirmation that Special Inspiration of Scripture is indeed complete. By contrast, the Charismatics are little different than Mormons in this respect, believing that Special Inspiration is ongoing -- just check your "burning breast" [with apologies for burrito-induced heartburn], or "holy gibberish" [with apologies to epileptics everywhere]).

Anyway, that side-note aside... you're right, John Knox was almost certainly a Geneva Man. Though I very much doubt that the author of that List of "KJV Users" had any deceit in mind -- he simply identified those who preferred Classically-Protestant "Masoretic/Receptus" Bibles (whether Geneva or KJV) over the "Alexandrian/Latinate" Bibles preferred by Modern Protestants and Romanists, and then lumped them all together under the rubric of "famous KJVers".

An understandable mistake, IMO. Personally, I think that both the Geneva and the KJV are faithful translations of the Masoretic/Receptus Texts preferred by Classical Protestants... and whether "Republican" or "Monarchical", are both generally better Translations than the "Alexandrian/Latinate" Bibles preferred by Modern Protestants and Romanists. It's only when the KJV-onlyists start chanting, "King James Uber Alles!", that the differences between the Classical-Protestant and the Modernist Translations are confused in favor of Idolizing a single Anglican Text (1611KJV or 1817KJV or whatever).

JMHO.

I much enjoyed the rest of your post... it's late, tho; I'll try to get back to it.

best, op

A thoughtful post. Thanks for your comment. Some of the recent KJV threads have touched on the matter of (what King James consided) subversive footnotes in the Geneva and the other political background of the era. But not in any depth. We've also touched upon the poetic meter of the KJV text and it's advantage in memorization. The KJV has a way of sticking to your ribs, the phrases being just a bit more memorable due to the meter.

I think that both the Geneva and the KJV are faithful translations of the Masoretic/Receptus Texts preferred by Classical Protestants...

Amen!

Someone better mark this date down when I gave OP an amen!

Pinging you guys to a very good post (#862) of last week.

Either You are a Liar or God is a Liar.