What’s the Big Deal About the KJV? {episode 1}: it’s just coffee.

Those of you who have followed me for any amount of time know by now that I am a KJV-Only IFB. I have written a few posts on the KJV in the past (see below for a list), and I’ve engaged in many debates in defense of the KJV as well (in person, email, comments on this blog, and on facebook). I also hosted Dr. Sam Gipp’s book titled “The Answer Book” on a weekly basis for a few months (although we did not get through the entire book).

Recently, Dr. Sam Gipp has produced a few short videos in defense of the KJV. I think they’re VERY well done videos in which he is very gracious in how he explains his beliefs to other people. I was so impressed with the videos, I’ve decided to host them here on the blog. *and the crowd cheers* (don’t even try to deny it.)  :]

Without further ado, Episode 1 of “What’s the Big Deal About the KJV?”

Thoughts…? Questions…? Comments…?


Posted on September 11, 2012, in What's the Big Deal About the KJV? and tagged , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. 18 Comments.

  1. Actually pretty-well done. I’m not convinced that KJV is the only correct version, but when KJV-only folks stick with the Textus-Receptus arguments, I feel they are making good points. It’s when they say silly things about some study proving that KJV is easier to read than other translations that they lose me.

    • just wait for episodes 2 and 3 — it gets better! :]

    • The only problem w/ KJVO that use the TR as a basis for their KJVOism, is they contradict themselves. This is what happened when Jack Moorman debated James White last year in London: Moorman was defending the KJV based on the underlying TR. However, the AV was not translated from “The TR” for there is no such thing as “The TR.” There are many editions of something called a “TR” and none of them match each other and none of them match the AV perfectly. The AV was put together as an eclectic text: taken from various editions of a “TR,” some Alexandrian manuscripts (TR/KJVO folks hate admitting this), some German, some previous English editions, some Latin texts, and sometimes they added something found in no manuscript (such as “God save the king” & “God forbid”). The “TR” used today was done by Scrivner (a man on Wescott and Horts revision committee). He created his TR by translating the AV New Testament back into Greek and making some changes to his Greek where he felt the AV translators had erred.

      Bottom line is there is and has never been a single text that matches the AV perfectly.
      So if a person (like Jack Moorman) claims to be KJVO, but says they are KJVO because it’s based in the right text, they either have no idea what they are talking about or they really believe the Greek TR (without telling you which of the almost 30 editions of the TR it is) and will side w/ “it” when it differs from the AV – which all of them do.

      • Tony, these are all good points and are why I don’t count myself as a KJV-only Christian. The intention of my comment was to say that the TR reasoning, flawed as it is, is at least more substantive than some of the other things you hear KJV-only folks using, and the one that really gets me is the “studies have shown it’s actually easier to read” one.

  2. Hi Heather, glad to see you’re feeling better!

    I grew up in a church that primarily used the NIV. However, around the time I was 12, we had a pastor who had previously been Presbyterian and who primarily quoted scripture in the KJV format. It is certainly more poetic-sounding than more modern translations!

    Having read your previous post regarding your thoughts on the KJV, you mentioned that other translations have resulted in the loss of doctrine. Which doctrine is lost in the more modern version(s) of the Bible?

    • just to name a couple real quick —

      1. turning Mary from a virgin into simply a “young woman.”
      2. removing the blood from a few key verses dealing with Salvation.
      3. referring to Lucifer as the “morning star” – setting him up as an equal with Christ.

      • I did not know that. I am off to research further. Thanks!

        Also, do you feel that Dr. Gipp’s Q&A (which is very interesting) is fairly exhaustive in terms of the complaints people have against the KJV?

        (I’ve gotta say I find this deeply interesting because, growing up, my parents complained a lot about the people that claimed KJV superiority over other translations. It’s also nice to see that, while you have your own opinions about it, you’re not one who says everyone else is just flat out wrong!)

        • I think Dr. Gipp’s “The Answer Book” is a pretty thorough look into the “complaints” and issues people have with the KJV. I’m sure there’s a few things he didn’t cover in his book, but it contains many chapters and ALOT of information on the topic. If nothing else, it’s a good starting point.

          Happy Researching! :]

      • Heather, this is the first I’ve heard of the virgin/young woman thing. I just checked my software which has 11 translations on it, including NASB, and each one says virgin for Luke 1:27.
        More surprising, the KJV only refers to Mary as a virgin in two places: Luke 1;27 and Matthew 1:23. But the NASB uses the word virgin to describe Mary in those two verses, plus two additional ones: Matthew 1:25 and Luke 1:34.
        So I’m curious where you got your information for your first bullet point.
        (I use the NASB for comparison because it’s the first one the professor in the video mentions when he lists corrupted translations).

  3. I am not KJ ONLY but I much prefer it to other versions (except when interacting with children, especially not very bright ones, and people whose first language isn’t English). I do use a number of other versions for study purposes.

    I find the KJ much more ‘definite’ in its choice of words. For instance, the KJ “yield” carries much more significance than “present” as used in others. The meaning of ‘yield’ involves a complete and absolute surrender, whereas ‘present’ is rather wishy-washy.

    I find the KJ easier to memorise because it is more poetic or ‘different’. English prose is NOT easy to memorise, but the KJ is.

    I would like to watch the video, but my connection will not allow me to watch them.

  4. Dr. Gipp’s video series (two in the series now, as far as I know) is one of the most professionally done, yet error-filled videos on Youtube concerning this specific topic. Just a few points that should be addressed:

    1) Dr. Gipp claims, or at least alludes to, this idea that Alexandria, Egypt was the home of some sort of anti-Trinitarian cult, and that they attempted to subtly corrupt Scripture there. Can he provide names, evidence, quotes, ANYTHING to back up this bald assertion?

    2) Athanasius defended the Trinity, specifically the Deity of Christ, against the heretics known as “Arians”…many of which were in Byzantium and Antioch. Funny thing is, Athanasius was the bishop of….Alexandria, Egypt. Ya know, that “non-Trinitarian cult” place.

    3) If we are supposed to follow the “pure” Byzantine line of manuscripts, then can Dr. Gipp either support the removing of the Comma Johanneum, or show a SINGLE Byzantine manuscript containing the Comma (1 Jn. 5:7-8) before the 14th century. Not ONE Byzantine manuscript contains it.

    There are many, MANY other problems with his argumentation. Unfortunately, few KJVO-ers do the critical research necessary to understand the situation. To them, the KJV is the inerrant translation because it’s the inspired Word of God, and it’s the inspired Word of God because it’s the inerrant translation.

  5. Love it! You know I’ve been thinking how influences effect things. Even the slightest bit of worldliness can effect a painting, a book, a conversation, even a relationship. This visually demonstrates it perfectly. If we don’t strive for perfection, in this case, the untainted word of God, we will always end up with something less than pure. Even false religions could teach a person good character traits, but without Christ, they are just false. Desires, passions, direction without Christ are useless, pagan. Thanks for this wonderful video!

  6. Awesome!!!!!

  7. When I was a boy, I attempted to do the same thing and almost snuffed myself.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: