Members teylacarter91 Posted March 28, 2012 Members Share Posted March 28, 2012 I have been doing a lot of studying and I have found that the KJB was not the first Bible to be translated to English. Wycliffe (1382) Tyndale (1526) Coverdale (1535) Matthew (1537) Great Bible (1539) Geneva (1560) Bishops (1568) Douai-Rhemis (1582-1610) King James (1611) So why are Independent Fundamentalists King James only? I do not want to sound rude or discredit anyone... I am simply curious. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators HappyChristian Posted March 28, 2012 Administrators Share Posted March 28, 2012 Ann, I moved your thread here to the Biblical Issues forum. Thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members teylacarter91 Posted March 28, 2012 Author Members Share Posted March 28, 2012 I was wondering where it went... I appreciate that :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Oldtimer Posted March 28, 2012 Members Share Posted March 28, 2012 Here's the Calvery Baptist Church's "King James Bible Declaration" which pretty much sums up why independent fundamental Baptist churches use the KJB. http://www.olneycalvarybaptist.com/index.php?p=1_34_King-James-Bible-... They also have this page, which goes into more depth. Why We use the KJB. http://www.olneycalvarybaptist.com/index.php?p=1_22_Why-We-Use-KJV This is one of the most detailed sites that I've found for comparisons of the KJB and other versions. http://brandplucked.webs.com/articles.htm Even more information: Fighting Back - Scroll down to the 10 reasons: http://www.av1611.org/KJV/fight.html The Bibles in your list and others, are IMHO, forerunners of the King James Bible. It's an interesting study of the history behind the KJB before and after the initial publication in May of 1611. Here's just one link of many. http://www.av1611.org/KJV/KJVhist.html that dive into this subject. In closing, I'm just a layman who's also being studing this subject over the last 18 months or so. Hope this helps, a bit. teylacarter91 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Invicta Posted March 28, 2012 Members Share Posted March 28, 2012 many disenters and baptists rejected KJV in favour of the Geneva Version. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Covenanter Posted March 28, 2012 Members Share Posted March 28, 2012 (edited) many disenters and baptists rejected KJV in favour of the Geneva Version.Including the Pilgrim Fathers. The KJV/AV was not immediately accepted for political reasons, & King James wanted a revision for political reasons. The KJV was accepted as the years went by - & the other versions were no longer freely available. Edited March 28, 2012 by Covenanter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members teylacarter91 Posted March 28, 2012 Author Members Share Posted March 28, 2012 Those are fantastic articles! Thank you for sharing. But they all deal with the modern versions... nothing about the versions before the King James... that is where my interest is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members teylacarter91 Posted March 28, 2012 Author Members Share Posted March 28, 2012 So why don't we hear more of the Geneva Bible? I never heard of it until I studied more of Bible translations. Why can't people who believe in just King James also accept the Geneva Bible? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members John81 Posted March 28, 2012 Members Share Posted March 28, 2012 The Geneva Bible was hard to find until more recent years. It's seen a revival of sorts among some who hold to more of a Reformed Theology. The main problem many had with the Geneva Bible was that it was filled with study notes written from a Reformed, Calvinist viewpoint. This is one of the reasons the King James Bible was specifically put forth without study notes. swathdiver 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Invicta Posted March 28, 2012 Members Share Posted March 28, 2012 The Geneva Bible was hard to find until more recent years. It's seen a revival of sorts among some who hold to more of a Reformed Theology. The main problem many had with the Geneva Bible was that it was filled with study notes written from a Reformed, Calvinist viewpoint. This is one of the reasons the King James Bible was specifically put forth without study notes. I am not sure that that has any bearing. The Church of England had reformed Calvinistic articles, I read recently that it was Calvinistic rather than Lutheran. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members teylacarter91 Posted March 29, 2012 Author Members Share Posted March 29, 2012 The Geneva Bible was hard to find until more recent years. It's seen a revival of sorts among some who hold to more of a Reformed Theology. The main problem many had with the Geneva Bible was that it was filled with study notes written from a Reformed, Calvinist viewpoint. This is one of the reasons the King James Bible was specifically put forth without study notes. ah okay. That makes sense. But I am still wondering, why IFB stand so strongly with King James. Men like Tyndale risked their lives to translate the Greek and Hebrew texts to English.... If he loved God and was inspired to translate his word.... why don't IFB accept his translation? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members John81 Posted March 29, 2012 Members Share Posted March 29, 2012 ah okay. That makes sense. But I am still wondering, why IFB stand so strongly with King James. Men like Tyndale risked their lives to translate the Greek and Hebrew texts to English.... If he loved God and was inspired to translate his word.... why don't IFB accept his translation? I really couldn't answer that question. All I know is that God directed me to the KJB and from that moment on the Word opened up to me, I was able to memorize with relative ease and I grew like I never thought possible before that. I didn't come by the KJB because I was taught that or told I had to, it was after prayer and asking about this that the Lord led me to the KJB. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members teylacarter91 Posted March 29, 2012 Author Members Share Posted March 29, 2012 I really couldn't answer that question. All I know is that God directed me to the KJB and from that moment on the Word opened up to me, I was able to memorize with relative ease and I grew like I never thought possible before that. I didn't come by the KJB because I was taught that or told I had to, it was after prayer and asking about this that the Lord led me to the KJB. I love that response. My husband grew up with King James and I with NIV but we decided that we would use King James as a couple just because it is one of the best translations. I love reading both NIV and KJB. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Seth Doty Posted March 29, 2012 Members Share Posted March 29, 2012 (edited) But I am still wondering, why IFB stand so strongly with King James. Men like Tyndale risked their lives to translate the Greek and Hebrew texts to English.... If he loved God and was inspired to translate his word.... why don't IFB accept his translation? In point of fact the KJV borrowed heavily from Tyndales earlier translation. There are some differences here and there of course, but if you read the tyndale NT you will realize just how closely the language of the KJV follows tyndales translation much of the time. See it here and compare it to the KJV. http://faithofgod.net/WTNT/ Edited March 29, 2012 by Seth-Doty Covenanter and teylacarter91 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Covenanter Posted March 29, 2012 Members Share Posted March 29, 2012 Wycliffe translated into English from the Latin Vulgate. It was then hand-copied & distributed. It was so successful that there are nearly 200 copies in museums.You might find it difficult to read, even when type-set:JN 3:16 For God louede so the world, that he yaf his `oon bigetun sone, that ech man that bileueth in him perische not, but haue euerlastynge lijf. The English reformation effectively began with Wycliffe, 150 years before Luther. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.