Why do King James Onlyists hate this book?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Big_Dummy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

Big_Dummy

Guest
David Norton has recently re-edited the King James Bible for Cambridge, and this book arises from his intensive work on that project. Here he shows how the text of the most important Bible in the English language was made, and how, for better and for worse, it changed in the hands of printers and editors until, in 1769, it became the text we know today. Using evidence as diverse as the marginalia of the original translators in unique copies of early printings, and the results of extensive computer collation of electronically held texts, Norton has produced a scholarly edition of the King James Bible for the new century that will restore the authority of the 1611 translation. This book describes this fascinating background, explains Norton’s editorial principles and provides substantial lists and tables of variant readings. It will be indispensable to scholars of the English Bible, literature and publishing history.

David Norton - A Textual History of the King James Bible

archive.org/details/DavidNorton-ATextualHistoryOfTheKingJamesBible
 
Big_Dummy said:
David Norton has recently re-edited the King James Bible for Cambridge, and this book arises from his intensive work on that project. Here he shows how the text of the most important Bible in the English language was made, and how, for better and for worse, it changed in the hands of printers and editors until, in 1769, it became the text we know today. Using evidence as diverse as the marginalia of the original translators in unique copies of early printings, and the results of extensive computer collation of electronically held texts, Norton has produced a scholarly edition of the King James Bible for the new century that will restore the authority of the 1611 translation. This book describes this fascinating background, explains Norton’s editorial principles and provides substantial lists and tables of variant readings. It will be indispensable to scholars of the English Bible, literature and publishing history.

David Norton - A Textual History of the King James Bible

archive.org/details/DavidNorton-ATextualHistoryOfTheKingJamesBible
Click to expand...
I don’t have any idea why they should hate it. I for my part have a 1611 KJV here, though I prefer other versions in addition to keeping in touch with the Greek…
 
5 years later KJVO are up in arms about this?
News to me. What discussions I have heard involve serious discussions and nothing approaching hate…
Interesting…
 
KJV-Onlyists are a very strange lot. And they really get to me since they make those like me who adore the Authorized Version seems a bit odd sometimes.

Oh and it’s funny that no Catholics have posted here yet.
 
I don’t see why KJV-onlyists would have issues with that. What they have issues with is people discarding the later Byzantine manuscripts in favour of earlier Alexandrian manuscripts.

That said they seem to have a lot of hate in them, so maybe they will.
 
First of all, Bran Stark is quite right; KJV-Onlyists are indeed an embarrassment to sane sensible people who love the KJV.

Now: Why would they hate this book? Because it not only implies, it actually proves & demonstrates that the KJV** has** a history.
Witness this bizarro-world conversation I once found myslef having with a young KJV-Onlyist:
She: “We’re having to get rid of several of our favorite Bibles”.
Zooey: “Oh, may I ask–”
She: “You see, we’ve discovered that there are several differences in the texts between the regular print KJV & the large print”.
Zooey: “Don’t you think they may simply be editor’s errors? I mean, any time a book is reprinted–”
She: “No, you don’t understand! These people are CHEATING people with poor vision!! They are changing the actual words of Jesus into something different!!!”
Zooey: “Well, but surely having a Bible that a person can read–”
She [getting red in the face & breathing heavily]: “Don’t you see?? It’s a conspiracy!! God GAVE us the Bible with the VERY WORDS that He inspired!! It has the EXACT language that JESUS spoke when He was on earth, & they are CHANGING it, and they are all going to go to HELL!!!”
Zooey:“Ummm…I think I may have left something in the oven, if I leave now, I may be able to keep the alarums from…”

No really. They really do believe, a goodly number of them do, they believe that Jesus spoke Shakepearean English, & that the Bible was first in KJV English, & that all the Greek & Hebrew texts are translations.
I forebore to mention my great-grandmother’s Dutch Bible, since it had all ready caused me one :eek::eek::eek:scene in the past…[There are no “Dutch Bibles”, you see. They’re all part of the above referenced:rolleyes: “conspiracy”.
Oy. And again I say:** Oy.
 
If you love Shakespeare you’ll always love KJV.

English then was at its most poetical & beautiful. No recent translations come near it.
Try any of its psalms & then the modern version & you’ll see what I mean.
 
Zooey said:
First of all, Bran Stark is quite right; KJV-Onlyists are indeed an embarrassment to sane sensible people who love the KJV.

Now: Why would they hate this book? Because it not only implies, it actually proves & demonstrates that the KJV** has** a history.
Witness this bizarro-world conversation I once found myslef having with a young KJV-Onlyist:
She: “We’re having to get rid of several of our favorite Bibles”.
Zooey: “Oh, may I ask–”
She: “You see, we’ve discovered that there are several differences in the texts between the regular print KJV & the large print”.
Zooey: “Don’t you think they may simply be editor’s errors? I mean, any time a book is reprinted–”
She: “No, you don’t understand! These people are CHEATING people with poor vision!! They are changing the actual words of Jesus into something different!!!”
Zooey: “Well, but surely having a Bible that a person can read–”
She [getting red in the face & breathing heavily]: “Don’t you see?? It’s a conspiracy!! God GAVE us the Bible with the VERY WORDS that He inspired!! It has the EXACT language that JESUS spoke when He was on earth, & they are CHANGING it, and they are all going to go to HELL!!!”
Zooey:“Ummm…I think I may have left something in the oven, if I leave now, I may be able to keep the alarums from…”
…].
Click to expand...
Hi,

you know to which person reminds me “she”?
To Mormons. 😉 😃
I have quite often also the feeling that they think that Shakespeaean English was the Language of Jesus. And you know what that led to? That they think that Jesus came to America! 😃 O.o

Esdra
 
So is it the collective opinion of this group that all textual streams are of equal value? Why?
 
I trust that this question will not derail the thread:

How can a reader/buyer of the KJV know for sure that the copy in his hand is an authentic version of that translation?

I mean, the Mormons offer a KJV to go along with their book of mormon for interested parties. I am inclined to believe that a denomination or sect championing the KJV as its source for the rule of faith may edit the translation to align with its beliefs.

Didn’t the JWs add the name of God over a hundred times to the New Testament for the same reason?

My point is, any Protestant denomination can uphold the KJV as its rule of faith but the same denomination can “tweak” its edition of the Bible to suit its needs. Where is the ultimate authority for defining an authentic KJV?
 
Bran_Stark said:
KJV-Onlyists are a very strange lot. And they really get to me since they make those like me who adore the Authorized Version seems a bit odd sometimes.

Oh and it’s funny that no Catholics have posted here yet.
Click to expand...
Because the KJV is a Protestant translation.

Personally, I have no idea why KJV Onlyists do anything.
 
:hypno: Why do KJVO’s do anything? 🤷

I haven’t read Norton’s book, but I will if I get the time. The history of Bible translations is fascinating to me. I sort of collect translations, can’t ever have too many.

The KJV is a translation I enjoy when I’m in a very literary mood, but I have little use for it otherwise. Just IMHO, it’s nearly unintelligible to speakers of contemporary English who aren’t English Lit scholars or who didn’t grow up with it.

Supporters of the Byzantine manuscripts have an arguable case, but even if they were right (I don’t think so, but it’s possible), the NKJV is a useful translation into current English, much more so than the KJV.
 
Big_Dummy said:
David Norton has recently re-edited the King James Bible for Cambridge, and this book arises from his intensive work on that project. Here he shows how the text of the most important Bible in the English language was made, and how, for better and for worse, it changed in the hands of printers and editors until, in 1769, it became the text we know today. Using evidence as diverse as the marginalia of the original translators in unique copies of early printings, and the results of extensive computer collation of electronically held texts, Norton has produced a scholarly edition of the King James Bible for the new century that will restore the authority of the 1611 translation. This book describes this fascinating background, explains Norton’s editorial principles and provides substantial lists and tables of variant readings. It will be indispensable to scholars of the English Bible, literature and publishing history.

David Norton - A Textual History of the King James Bible

archive.org/details/DavidNorton-ATextualHistoryOfTheKingJamesBible
Click to expand...
A real “dyed in the wool” KJV onlyist is almost crazed with the version: “If that version was good enough for Jesus it’s good enough for me.” They don’t know that it’s been changed a number of times since 1611 and they don’t want to know. We have the equivalent in the Douay Rheims only group of Catholics.
 
Why should I care. Change the KJV all you want. God bless:thumbsup:👍👍
 
JRRTFAN said:
A real “dyed in the wool” KJV onlyist is almost crazed with the version: “If that version was good enough for Jesus it’s good enough for me.” They don’t know that it’s been changed a number of times since 1611 and they don’t want to know. We have the equivalent in the Douay Rheims only group of Catholics.
Click to expand...
I wonder if this kind of phenomenon happens in countries where the language isn’t English?
 
I’m Catholic. I’ve already posted. I said, I don’t really care if they change the KJV or not. Today is the birthday of the United States Marine Corps. I don’t know why no Sailors or Airmen or Soldiers have posted to wish me a happy birthday. God bless all the Marines, both living and dead. The last verse of the Marine Corps Hymn (notice it’s a hymn and not a song) is if the army or the navy ever reach on heaven’s scene. They will find the streets are guarded by United States Marines. God Bless:thumbsup:👍👍
 
tobbias88 said:
If you love Shakespeare you’ll always love KJV.

English then was at its most poetical & beautiful. No recent translations come near it.
Try any of its psalms & then the modern version & you’ll see what I mean.
Click to expand...
I know. When I occasionally lector I lapse back into KJV if I’m not careful. But after years as a preacher, I know they aren’t paying attenion anyway. 😉
 
Ben_F said:
I’m Catholic. I’ve already posted. I said, I don’t really care if they change the KJV or not. Today is the birthday of the United States Marine Corps. I don’t know why no Sailors or Airmen or Soldiers have posted to wish me a happy birthday. God bless all the Marines, both living and dead. The last verse of the Marine Corps Hymn (notice it’s a hymn and not a song) is if the army or the navy ever reach on heaven’s scene. They will find the streets are guarded by United States Marines. God Bless:thumbsup:👍👍
Click to expand...
Look on Heaven’s scenes.

Happy birthday, Teufelshunde.

GKC, USAF, ret.
 
GKC said:
Look on Heaven’s scenes.

Happy birthday, Teufelshunde.

GKC, USAF, ret.
Click to expand...
hi

just a question out of curiosity: Can you speak German, or where do have the word ***“Teufelshunde” ***from? 😉

in Christ,
Esdra
 
Esdra said:
hi

just a question out of curiosity: Can you speak German, or where do have the word ***“Teufelshunde” ***from? 😉

in Christ,
Esdra
Click to expand...
I can barely speak English, acceptably, according to some folks.

But I used to read a little French.

Never had a day of German, but the story of the name that (as it was said) the Germans gave to the Marines in WWI is fairly well known. Though ( as I’ve read) it usually is given in incorrect German.

GKC
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top