Fundamentalists and the KJV Bible

[calchiquita]

It’s Tradition. Although fundamentalists eschew Tradition in the Catholic Church, they seem to have plenty of it themselves. Exclusive use of the KJV is one of them.

Although I don’t use it often in my personal reading, I love the beautiful language of the KJV. A couple of weeks ago, I caught Garrison Keillor on Morning Edition talking about the KJV. He said that by 1611 the English language had pretty much dropped its usage of “thee”, “thou”, “sayest”, etc., but King James asked his scribes to use this older language so it would sound more authoritative. Does anyone shed some additional light on that?

It seems that they were more concerned about the language being beautiful more than sounding authoritative according to this.

From bible-researcher.com/kjvhist.html

Mr. Huxley, whose tendency to superstitious reverence will not be suspected, has said of this version: “It is written in the noblest and purest English, and abounds in exquisite beauties of mere literary form.” The style used in this version was unique. It was not the English of that day, either spoken or written. Indeed, Mr. Marsh, in his “Lectures on the English Language” asserts, that the dialect used was not at any period “the actual current book language, nor the colloquial speech of the English people.”
The fact concerning the style of this version is, that from the earliest effort at English version each succeeding translator improved upon his predecessors, taking his best points continually, so that in the end the chief excellence of each appeared. King James’ version, therefore, combines the beautiful and felicitous expression of all who went before it.

 

[Techno2000]

Ok, that makes sense now. Unfortunately, he would probably come up with the same interpretation of snakes must be destroyed no matter what translation of the Bible he chose.

Right, and I got into a big dispute with him over this and he just back
himself up by saying something like :the Devil made snakes for Pharaoh to fight against Moses.

 

[lak611]

I found the date of the revision of the KJV. From Wikipedia:

Current printings of the King James Bible are typically based on an edition published at the University of Oxford in 1769, edited by Benjamin Blayney, and contain substantially the same text; however, there are a number of differences between the 1769 and the 1611. But these are relegated to punctuation, spelling and other minor eytemological corrections. Based on comparison the differences amount to 1/20th of 1%. The Oxford edition applied the device of supplying italics for absent words much more thoroughly, corrected a number of minor errors in punctuation, and made the spelling more consistent and updated (that is, to the standards of the 18th century).

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Version

 

[jmcrae]

Right, and I got into a big dispute with him over this and he just back
himself up by saying something like :the Devil made snakes for Pharaoh to fight against Moses.

That’s heretical at so many levels that it’s difficult to know where to begin. Does he realize that the Devil is incapable of creating anything at all?

 

[RHisComingHome]

I found it. Click here.

That is HILARIOUS!

 

[deb1]

That’s heretical at so many levels that it’s difficult to know where to begin. Does he realize that the Devil is incapable of creating anything at all?

Well, he sounds as if the poster is talking about an old man set in his ways. I don’t know if this would be a subject worth the poster argueing about. I think that if I was him, I would just enjoy fishing with the old gentleman and ignore his snake killing tendencies. (I own a pet snake by the way)

My grandmother was brought up in the rural south and despite being intelligent had a tendency to believe all types of strange things.

 

[deb1]

I know some people who prefer the KJV because of the beautiful language or because it helps provide unity to their church. This doesn’t bother me because we all have our individual tastes. Heck, I think that the KJV is very poetic, myself.

Preference for a particular translation is understandable. What bothers me is when certain churches view reading of the KJV as a mark of salvation. If you can’t understand ithe KJV verses then the Holy Spirit isn’t guiding you.

 

[Kevan]

How do you know ?

Weirdness tends to run in identifiable patterns. I have a lot of experience with the KJV-Only subspecies and those stupid “quotations” are not like the stupid things they actually say.

But don’t worry, the things that they actually do say will still be enough to make you spit out your coffee.

 

[RHisComingHome]

I saw a post on a woman’s blog today all about how the “early” church worshipped angels and this and that and that’s why the reformation was so great - to put the focus back on Jesus. She is staunchly KJV and staunchly anti-Catholic. I don’t know why those two things always go together but they seem to!

 

[jmcrae]

I saw a post on a woman’s blog today all about how the “early” church worshipped angels and this and that and that’s why the reformation was so great - to put the focus back on Jesus. She is staunchly KJV and staunchly anti-Catholic. I don’t know why those two things always go together but they seem to!

I do. The preface of the King James Version is very anti-Catholic. I suppose there are those who think that the preface is also part of the inspired text itself.

 

[lak611]

I do. The preface of the King James Version is very anti-Catholic. I suppose there are those who think that the preface is also part of the inspired text itself.

Nowadays, most KJV Bibles do not have the preface. Even to a Protestant, "To the most high and mighty Prince . . " sounds odd, especially to an American.

 

[jmcrae]

Nowadays, most KJV Bibles do not have the preface. Even to a Protestant, "To the most high and mighty Prince . . " sounds odd, especially to an American.

So, someone buying it for the first time today wouldn’t see the preface. But those who inherit their Bibles from parents and grandparents, or who pick up Gideon Bibles from hotel rooms, or who have them lying around from their childhood days would certainly see it.

The language of the preface isn’t any more odd or more high-flown than the text of the translation itself, so I doubt that it’s a serious stumbling block to these guys, even if they are patriotic Americans. (A lot of them are survivalists and anti-government types.)

 

[lak611]

So, someone buying it for the first time today wouldn’t see the preface. But those who inherit their Bibles from parents and grandparents, or who pick up Gideon Bibles from hotel rooms, or who have them lying around from their childhood days would certainly see it.

Or if one has a 1611 edition reprint, which also has the lengthy “Translators to the reader” section missing in even most of the c. 1900 copies. BTW, I stayed in a hotel recently. The Gideon Bible in the hotel was the NKJV.

The language of the preface isn’t any more odd or more high-flown than the text of the translation itself, so I doubt that it’s a serious stumbling block to these guys, even if they are patriotic Americans. (A lot of them are survivalists and anti-government types.)

This is true.

 

[Kevan]

Honestly, folks, the Preface has nothing to do with the KJVO-anticatholic connection.

First, let’s define “anticatholic.” I went over this with some forum members some time back, since the word gets used for all kinds of things, and I think that we reached a consensus that it means to disagree impolitely. One may believe strongly that, for instance, devotion to Mary is wrong, but he shouldn’t be called anticatholic unless he is impolite in his statements concerning it.

The KJVOs are impolite, by and large. 99% of them are Baptist, so one shouldn’t fault them for believing Baptist doctrines. The problem is their vicious language and their unwillingness to listen to reason.

So far as I can tell, these problems originate with the founder of the KJVO movement, Peter Ruckman. He was not the first to propose the KJVO position, but he developed it and popularized it by his commanding personality, eloquent preaching, and appearance of massive intelligence. (One of his former teachers said of him that he could memorize anything, but couldn’t think.)

Ruckman specializes in vicious language, slicing people up like a chain saw. It’s some of the ugliest stuff you could ever read, such as telling his readers “You don’t think that’s the Christian spirit? Oh shut up! You wouldn’t know the Christian spirit if it walked up to you on the street!” (That’s not a verbatim quote, but I’ve come as close as I can by memory.)

Some kinds of people are attracted to that, they fall in behind Ruckman and begin aping him, and they produce more of the same. And Ruckman is a vicious anticatholic, so his apes adopt that position as well.

 

[lak611]

Honestly, folks, the Preface has nothing to do with the KJVO-anticatholic connection.

First, let’s define “anticatholic.” I went over this with some forum members some time back, since the word gets used for all kinds of things, and I think that we reached a consensus that it means to disagree impolitely. One may believe strongly that, for instance, devotion to Mary is wrong, but he shouldn’t be called anticatholic unless he is impolite in his statements concerning it.

I agree.

The KJVOs are impolite, by and large. 99% of them are Baptist, so one shouldn’t fault them for believing Baptist doctrines. The problem is their vicious language and their unwillingness to listen to reason.

So far as I can tell, these problems originate with the founder of the KJVO movement, Peter Ruckman. He was not the first to propose the KJVO position, but he developed it and popularized it by his commanding personality, eloquent preaching, and appearance of massive intelligence. (One of his former teachers said of him that he could memorize anything, but couldn’t think.)

Ruckman specializes in vicious language, slicing people up like a chain saw. It’s some of the ugliest stuff you could ever read, such as telling his readers “You don’t think that’s the Christian spirit? Oh shut up! You wouldn’t know the Christian spirit if it walked up to you on the street!” (That’s not a verbatim quote, but I’ve come as close as I can by memory.)

Some kinds of people are attracted to that, they fall in behind Ruckman and begin aping him, and they produce more of the same. And Ruckman is a vicious anticatholic, so his apes adopt that position as well.

Is Ruckman still living?

 

[Rightlydivide]

I honestly…have no idea…how anyone can consider Dr. Ruckman the founder of KJVO. I can go back hundreds of years of support for the Authorized Version. IF anyone is the founder of this movement, it is John Burgon, not Dr. Ruckman.

 

[Kevan]

I honestly…have no idea…how anyone can consider Dr. Ruckman the founder of KJVO. I can go back hundreds of years of support for the Authorized Version. IF anyone is the founder of this movement, it is John Burgon, not Dr. Ruckman.

Hundreds of years? And Burgon wrote The Revision Revised in what year?

We’re talking KJVO here, as in King James Version Only. Are you under the impression that Burgon would have had any sympathy with Ruckman if he had lived an additional ninety years and been able to read Ruckman’s writings? If so, I’d remind you of what Burgon actually said:

Let no one at all events obscure the one question at issue, by asking, — ‘whether we consider the Textus Receptus infallible?’ The merit or demerit of the Received Text has absolutely nothing whatever to do with the question. We care nothing about it. Any text would equally suit our present purpose.

And:

Once for all, we request it may be clearly understood that we do not, by any means, claim perfection for the Received Text. We entertain no extravagant notions on this subject. Again and again we shall have occasion to point out that the Textus Receptus needs correction.

There’s Burgon, the champion of the textus receptus, affirming that it is imperfect and needs correction. I guess you could say that Ruckman agreed, since he believes that the KJV is flawless and that it corrects all of the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. But what you cannot say is that Burgon believed ANYTHING like KJVOism.

I’ll repeat my earlier statement: Ruckman didn’t invent the idea of KJVO, but he developed it and popularized it, and his bad manners have cast his unmistakable stamp on those who are led away by his error. Before his writings, pretty much nobody believed that the KJV was perfectly translated by the miraculous intervention of God, was more authoritative than the manuscripts, contained advanced revelation, and authorized Baptists to verbally abuse people to a degree that would scandalize nearly any plumber I’ve ever met. But, thanks to his ministry, there’s a whole new breed of Fundamentalist afoot these days: vicious, hateful, ugly, arrogant, and glad.

I like them, actually. If you can talk them down and get them to wear shoes, they’re pretty decent folks. At least they believe something, which puts them ahead of a lot of dishrag Christians. And they tend to know and love their Bibles and they labor to bring sinners to Christ.

But poke them in the right place and the Ruckman halitosis comes billowing out. And it stinks.

 

[colliric]

A old Black man I work with(Baptist) thinks one must kill every snake you see because they come from the Devil he sites Genesis 3:15 for this:

15 I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.

True Story…

Thats funny considering he’s got a copy of the Douay Rheims!

or is that your bible?

It just would be pretty funny if a protestant used the Douay…

 

[colliric]

I do. The preface of the King James Version is very anti-Catholic. I suppose there are those who think that the preface is also part of the inspired text itself.

Yes but the original KJV included the Deuterocanon(as Apocrypha, but it was still there) so it’s not as anti-catholic as modern protestant bibles simply because of that. The 1611 version is easily the lest anti-catholic protestant bible that has been produced. Their translative techniques have actually gotten more and more anti-catholic.

The KJV agrees with the Douay Rheims on most of the contentious passages with exception of Genesis 3:15, Luke 1:28, the translation of Petros(KJV opts for “Small Stone” of cause), and one or two other verses.

Part of the reason is that the KJV used the Textus Recepticus and the Vulgate, and kept tabs on the Douay translative work that had been completed 2 years before the KJV came out.

 

[mozart-250]

Just one comment concerning KJVO.

Of course you perceive them as anti-Catholic because that is what you are (and I am not denying that). The reality, however, is that they are really anti-everybody-else.

Go to their web sites and you will see how they are also anti noted liberals like Billy Graham, James Dobson, the late Jerry Farwell, John MacArthur…

You guys aren’t the only apostates. I am too.