King James Only - Resources
I found an old post (more than 10 years old). I'm not here to argue, but to just state the fact that I only use the King James Bible. Seems like all the Logos packages are loaded with books that constantly quote other modern translations, and cater more to ESV, and other modern versions. It is baked all through the program in the Factbook, and other resources. I'm considering using Logos more (coming from a different program), but I have some doubts because of my stated position.
Are there other KJV Only users that would convince me Logos is a good program for us?
Comments
-
Welcome to the forums.
Shane Rice said:Are there other KJV Only users that would convince me Logos is a good program for us?
I am not a KJV Only user but one advantage of Logos, the that regardless of the version used by a book, your favorite Bible (i.e. KJV) is only a hover away. Hover over the reference and you will see it in the KJV.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
While you're waiting for a KJB-Only, I can confirm MJ's point. I personally have no use for the ESV (Logos' default). And I only rarely see it ... mainly on Faithlife's web verse popups (outside Logos). I have my favorite translation and Logos reliably shows it to me.
I will say, absent the KJB being your preferred translation, a KJB 'perspective', whether doctrinal, semantic, or tradition-based is quite thin in Logos. I doubt a major impediment for you, but Logos does love its own perspective.
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
Thank you guys, I'm aware I can set the preferred Bible. I just learned I can prioritize my library. I do have some things already I have collected. That makes a difference in what is shown when I click on things. I have had logos for a couple of years, but never really used it.
0 -
Disclaimer: I'm not a KJV Only user, but I will try to answer your questions.
There are some resources that are geared to the King James Version.
John Phillips Commentary Series (27 vols.)
Baptist New Testament Commentary (7 vols.)
The KJV Standard Lesson Commentary, 2002–2003
The KJV Standard Lesson Commentary, 2003–2004
The KJV Standard Lesson Commentary, 2004–2005
The KJV Standard Lesson Commentary, 2005–2006
The KJV Standard Lesson Commentary, 2006–2007
(missing volume)
The KJV Standard Lesson Commentary, 2008–2009
(missing volume)
The KJV Standard Lesson Commentary, 2010–2011
The KJV Standard Lesson Commentary, 2011–2012
The KJV Standard Lesson Commentary, 2012–2013
The KJV Standard Lesson Commentary, 2013–2014
The KJV Standard Lesson Commentary, 2014–2015
KJV Standard Lesson Commentary, 2015-2016
KJV Standard Lesson Commentary: 2016-2017
The KJV Standard Lesson Commentary, 2017–2018
KJV Standard Lesson Commentary, 2018-2019
KJV Standard Lesson Commentary, 2019–2020
KJV Standard Lesson Commentary, 2020–2021 (SLC)
KJV Standard Lesson Commentary, 2021-2022 (SLC)
KJV Standard Lesson Commentary, 2022-2023 (SLC)
KJV Standard Lesson Commentary, 2023-2024 (SLC)
KJV Standard Lesson Commentary, 2024-2025 (SLC)
Ryrie Study Bible: King James Version
Old Testament Prophets: A Supplement to the Preacher’s Outline & Sermon Bible: King James Version
Christian History Magazine—Issue 100: Celebrating the 400th Anniversary of the King James Bible
Pure Voice Audio Bible - King James Version, KJV: Old Testament (audio)
Dramatized Audio Bible - King James Version, KJV: Complete Bible (audio)
The 1900 King James Version (KJV) with Reverse Interlinear
The KJV Daily Devotional: Inspiration and Encouragement from the Beloved King James Version
The Writing on the Wall: Everyday Phrases from the King James Bible (in pre-pub)
0 -
Shane Rice said:
Are there other KJV Only users that would convince me Logos is a good program for us?
I'm not KJV only but I spent many years learning the scriptures with the KJV and I still have a lot of it stored in memory.
Although I do not agree with the foundational conclusions that KJV only believers arrive at, I totally respect their right to use whichever Bible translation and tools they feel are the best for them.
Logos basically publishes what is out there to publish. Logos has numerous different versions of the TR, and several good translations of it. The KJV is totally supported by Logos software and so are the resources that are based upon it. Logos also supports the modern translations of the TR and revisions of the KJV.
I am not aware of any Bible software out there that is KJV only in its resources. If it were, it would be excluding itself from pretty much all modern scholarship.
But if you compare Logos to its competition, I would bet you a dollar to a donut that Logos has *MORE* KJV only resources, simply because Logos has more of everything when compared to their competition.
If you feel any resources is lacking, you can always put in a request for it.
If you do find any resource that other packages have and Logos lacks, please post it here, I'm curious if there are any [:)]
0 -
Bullingers works were all based on KJV.
Figures of Speech Used in the Bible
A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek New Testament
Bullinger was dispensational in his interpretations, and I disagree with many of his conclusions. But his scholarship was amazing.
The Companion Bible contains chiastic structure diagrams as its outline and organization, a feature which I have never seen in any other study Bible.
Figures of speech is probably the best known and most widely used work of its kind. Its comments are directed toward the A.V. 1611 and R.V. (He is not generally nice to the R.V. and shows frequently how the KJV got many things correct that the R.V. missed)
0 -
There are also a bunch of other resources available that use only the KJV (though they can be used with other versions). You can find these by searching the store for the exact phrase in quotes: "based on the king james" (it's not case sensitive, so I don't bother to capitalize, not out of disrespect but to save time).
Most of these are in the form of the Herschel Hobbs Commentary, various volumes categorized as Family Bible Study, Bible Studies for Life, and Studying Adult Life and Work Lessons. Unfortunately these are only available as individual volumes, not all together in a collection, which is extremely odd. And they are in pre-pub, which means they haven't been released yet, but the price they're being offered at now is probably the lowest you'll ever see them (unless Logos decides to bundle them together at some point in the future, in which case the per-volume price might be lower).
0 -
Wow! Thank you everyone! That does give me a lot to consider. I appreciate the help.
0 -
The list looks impressive at the onset, when I drill down into it, there are over 20 sets of Sunday School lessons... not exactly what I'm looking for in studying the Bible. There are 5 audio Bible sets (how many does one person need of the same Bible?) I'm left with about 3-4 useful things out of the list. I'm building a 'wish list' of items for Logos.
0 -
Shane Rice said:
I found an old post (more than 10 years old). I'm not here to argue, but to just state the fact that I only use the King James Bible. Seems like all the Logos packages are loaded with books that constantly quote other modern translations, and cater more to ESV, and other modern versions. It is baked all through the program in the Factbook, and other resources. I'm considering using Logos more (coming from a different program), but I have some doubts because of my stated position.
Are there other KJV Only users that would convince me Logos is a good program for us?
Hi Shane,
I am a King James only preacher. I have come to that position because I believe the TR to be superior to the Critical text. I have found the text comparison tool both of English translations and of Greek Manuscripts to be very helpful. As far as commentaries, I find help from Barns Notes and J Vernon McGee. Simple stuff but King James based. I have been using Logos for over 25 years and I have been a preservationist for that whole time. Even with my King James position, I probably spend 20-30 hours weekly studying with and using Logos. I hope that this gives you some perspective.
0 -
Pastor Don Carpenter said:
Hi Shane,
I am a King James only preacher. I have come to that position because I believe the TR to be superior to the Critical text. I have found the text comparison tool both of English translations and of Greek Manuscripts to be very helpful. As far as commentaries, I find help from Barns Notes and J Vernon McGee. Simple stuff but King James based. I have been using Logos for over 25 years and I have been a preservationist for that whole time. Even with my King James position, I probably spend 20-30 hours weekly studying with and using Logos. I hope that this gives you some perspective.
Thank you for the response, and happy to meet you!
I hold the same position. My question is (or was), does Logos (in all of it's data sets) push for Critical Text views. I'm particular to the books I use, because if the author is pro-critical text, it will come out in his writings every time. If the author is pro-TR, that too is shown in his writing views. I too spend 20-30 hours a week studying (message preparation) and simply try to stick with the good books, with authors of like position.
I determined not to buy any of their packages, because they are full of books I will not use. Instead, I purchased a feature set, and will eventually acquire books as finances allow. I'm still learning the basics of the program though.
0 -
There is some irony. As the KJB-only area is sort of on life-support, the Byzantine area seems to be getting more support. Both largely Majority text.
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
So I made a wish list of products:
Analytical Bible Expositor - John G. Butler (I currently own this in Accordance)
John G. Butler - Studies of the Saviour
John G. Butler - Bible Biography Series (I currently own this in Accordance)
John Phillips Commentary - (I currently own this in Accordance)
Webster's 1828 Dictionary
Treasury of David
Weirsbe Commentary -
The Pulpit Commentary -
Sadly, these are not included in any package... So even if I were to purchase a package, I would still be missing most of what I would like to have.
Much of what I want (not listed on here) are in the Public Domain too! Probably because there is not a publisher backing these items they are not in a package? I already own Matthew Henry, and Treasury of Scripture Knowledge.
0 -
It would also be cool if Logos would team up with Sword of the Lord Publishers for classics from John R Rice and others. Oliver B Greene commentaries would also be way cool in Logos.
0 -
That would be great for sure!
0 -
Pastor Don Carpenter said:
It would also be cool if Logos would team up with Sword of the Lord Publishers for classics from John R Rice and others. Oliver B Greene commentaries would also be way cool in Logos.
Love those John R Rice classics. I would buy those.
0 -
GaoLu said:Pastor Don Carpenter said:
It would also be cool if Logos would team up with Sword of the Lord Publishers for classics from John R Rice and others. Oliver B Greene commentaries would also be way cool in Logos.
Love those John R Rice classics. I would buy those.
I also would buy those
0 -
I do not have a favorite translation. My parents gave me my first Bible and It was the RSV. That is why I love the text comparison product here in LOGOS. Having had to do translations I found that not knowing the history of the people who used it as their native tongue, could cause many miss interpretations. As an example, the word translated as "predestination" in the NT can be translated as "ordained". Prayer before Bible study is, for me, a must.
p.s. I have the KJV in my library and my Dad, who was a minister of music, loved the Psalms in the KJV as they were more like songs than any other translation.
May I AM bless all who study His Word.
0 -
Shane Rice said:
So I made a wish list of products:
Analytical Bible Expositor - John G. Butler (I currently own this in Accordance)
John G. Butler - Studies of the Saviour
John G. Butler - Bible Biography Series (I currently own this in Accordance)
John Phillips Commentary - (I currently own this in Accordance)
Webster's 1828 Dictionary
Treasury of David
Weirsbe Commentary -
The Pulpit Commentary -
Sadly, these are not included in any package... So even if I were to purchase a package, I would still be missing most of what I would like to have.
Much of what I want (not listed on here) are in the Public Domain too! Probably because there is not a publisher backing these items they are not in a package? I already own Matthew Henry, and Treasury of Scripture Knowledge.
You are aware all the books on your list are available as individual purchases in Logos, right?
0 -
Absolutely. I have a wish list, it comes to over $1000 (I may have added a some that are not in the list above). Some of these are in packages, and many of them are not in packages. When books are in packages, you get them much cheaper. The packages seem to be sponsored by a publisher (just my observational thoughts). The books I would like, are not by one publisher, or a sponsoring publisher at least.
0 -
Shane Rice said:
Seems like all the Logos packages are loaded with books that constantly quote other modern translations, and cater more to ESV, and other modern versions.
I, too, don't want to be controversial in my response. I think I recall a thread here that explained why Logos defaults to the ESV as opposed to other modern translations. It may be a rights issue. Of course, they would have no rights issue defaulting to the KJV, but I think you probably know that a reason (if not the main reason) Logos packages contain more resources based on modern translations is because that is what most modern scholarship and most modern authors use.
Having been raised reading the KJV, the KJV is a beautiful translation in ways modern translations are not.
Adding to the list of works that use the KJV in Logos are all the works of the Puritan writers. They may quote the KJV since they were more or less contemporaties of the KJV. Also, the volumes of sermons of D.M. Lloyd-Jones that are in Logos would be based on the KJV as well.
0 -
Shane Rice said:
Seems like all the Logos packages are loaded with books that constantly quote other modern translations, and cater more to ESV, and other modern versions. It is baked all through the program in the Factbook, and other resources.
I am Catholic so my personal preferred resources are not skewed towards the AV, they are skewed towards Anglican, Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Lutheran, and Oriental Orthodox resources. (Okay, the Oriental Orthodox churches are so poorly represented that they are included only in theory.) I tag my resources by the primary and secondary translations they use ... obtained primarily from the copyright pages. The largest numbers for primary translations are:
- 748 author's own translation
- 190 NASB
- 341 NKJV
- 617 NRSV
- 322 RSV (British)
- 291 KJV/AV
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
Just looking for some opinions from the KJVO users in the thread - as someone who is not KJVO, I would be interested in hearing from those who are - what resource(s) would you recommend for an accurate and detailed summary of this position?
Logos 10 - OpenSuse Tumbleweed, Windows 11, Android 16 & Android 14
0 -
Hi Frank,
There are two strains of thought within the KJVO community. Although most folks outside this community would lump them together, they would not. So in the interest of explaining, not debating, let me try to articulate the differences.
- There is the King James Only position as articulated by Dr. Peter Ruckman. This position claims that God has reinspired the Bible in the King James Version and is now the standard for English speaking people. This position claims that it is better than the original Hebrew and Greek from which it came because God actually inspired the translation. Proponents of this position often reject the use of original language study or even the use of dictionaries because it is seen to elevate authority over the supreme authority, the Bible.
- The second position is often referred to as the Preservationist Position. This position argues that there are two families of Greek manuscripts, the Critical Text and the Textus Receptus. This position argues that although the TR is quite a bit younger, its 5800 + manuscripts stand as one voice where the Critical Text has many contradictions. Thus the TR is seen as the preserved Word of God. To my knowledge the only three main English Bibles that come from the TR is the KJV, NKJV and the MEV.
So with that said the best work I have found especially when it comes to defending position # 2 is "Touch not the Unclean Thing" by David Sorenson.
https://www.amazon.com/Touch-Not-Unclean-Thing-Separation/dp/0971138400/ref=sr_1_1?crid=2QX9RT5UX0JQU&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.HMY5UbZ1HogiCBbXy_vBjw.clTbF4wZl27pNEt58VZgSjt-3Kq2H5J9xf6mW8t6oCQ&dib_tag=se&keywords=touch+not+the+unclean+thing+sorenson&qid=1732638853&sprefix=touch+not+the+unclean+%2Caps%2C90&sr=8-1
0 -
Thanks for the reply and information @Pastor Don Carpenter - I've heard a few arguments for the position that just never seemed to represent what even detractors have given representation for…. I'm also quite familiar with Ruckman and his followers having lived in Pensacola for not quite 20 years….
I will look into the resource you recommended - I always prefer to hear from "sound voices" of positions that I may or may not agree with…
Logos 10 - OpenSuse Tumbleweed, Windows 11, Android 16 & Android 14
0 -
I appreciate your approach here. There is so much passion and misunderstanding wrapped up in this issue on both sides, I am glad for someone with a spirit like yours who just wants to hear another perspective. The Book I recommended was Dr. Sorenson's doctrinal dissertation for Pensacola Christian College ( not Ruckman's school.)
0 -
The second position is often referred to as the Preservationist Position. This position argues that there are two families of Greek manuscripts, the Critical Text and the Textus Receptus. This position argues that although the TR is quite a bit younger, its 5800 + manuscripts stand as one voice where the Critical Text has many contradictions. Thus the TR is seen as the preserved Word of God. To my knowledge the only three main English Bibles that come from the TR is the KJV, NKJV and the MEV.
This position is taken by a number of churches in support of their preferred text only put in terms of who defines the Bible - church or scholars.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
Oh, I did understand that Sorenson was not in Ruckman's camp from your post. Also fairly familiar with PCC due to my years of ministry in the city, as well as PCA and the Abeka program.
Logos 10 - OpenSuse Tumbleweed, Windows 11, Android 16 & Android 14
1 -
I'm not KJVO but I did do a lot of reading on the CT vs TR vs MT debate.
One author who's theory has gathered a lot of interest is Wilbur N. Pickering. Not on Logos yet, but seems to have a lot of interest …
Pickering on Logos
Pickering on Amazon
Pickering website
Not sure why my URL links are scrambled. I am unable to paste a link with the new forum.
The Amazon link is to a book that presents his theory and IMO would be what Logos should be adding. This can be found online as a free download. That is how I read it.
KJVonlyism is really not about the existing manuscript evidence. There are several levels to this discussion. (Just my opinions to follow)
- KJVonly - belief that the English text of the 1611 was "re-inspired" by God, and takes priority over all else, even ancient Hebrew and Greek.
- TRonly - belief that the Textus Receptus was a reinspired Greek text, and is superior to all other Greek manuscripts.
- Majority text - recognizes the significance of historical evidence, manuscript and patriarchal. And deduces that western textual scholars have erred in their conclusions.
Pickering falls into the Majority text camp, similar to Arthur Farstad who was executive editor of the New King James translation.
I can see M.J. Smith's point very clearly on this issue. If you follow the various arguments of textual criticism, you find the debate only exists in western circles, where the original languages were historically set aside in favor of latin translations. During the time of the reformation, original languages were rediscovered and formatted for the printing press which was invented about the exact same time.
But if you look at Eastern Orthodoxy where Greek has been the primary language, there was never any debate over which Bible to use.
Logos has available The Patriarchal Greek New Testament (PATr) which represents a Greek manuscript tradition which dates all the way back to the Emperor Constantine, who had commissioned Eusebius with having 50 Bibles copied for use in the Christian churches throughout the empire. This text appears to resemble what is called today in the west the Byzantine or Majority text, and which the TR was derived from.
Some of those holding the KJVonly position take this a step further and say that the Bibles produced in Constantine's time were copied from manuscripts that came from Antioch. Unfortunately I was never able to find any evidence of that (doesn't mean there is none). But most scholarly sources will agree that the first Church Father to quote extensively from the fuller text type was John Chrysostom. Chrysostom also falls right into that same time period, and had (presumably?) migrated to Constantinople from Antioch, where the original copies were kept.
I personally have not discovered anything which proves these assumptions, but I do agree it was possible. If there were earlier writings from known inhabitants of Antioch who quoted from a similar text, I would consider that convincing proof.
But I also consider the possibility that the text was enhanced and corrected in the process of being copied by professional scribes under the direction of Eusebius and the Emperor. Some of the earlier scholars believed that Vaticanus may have been one of those fifty Bibles first produced by Constantine. Logos does have resources that discuss these theories … but right now they have made it very difficult for me to enter a link. My belief is that Vaticanus was one of the sources used by Jerome when he was creating his compilation of latin translations.
So lacking further historical evidence, we have to decide for ourselves what makes the most sense. In western academia, the textual issues need to be resolved first. Once you have the closest replica of the originals possible, then you create an English translation. This is why I cannot be KJVonly, because it elevates an English translation, much like the western church did with the latin vulgate
The patriarchal texts were passed down by the church. If you consider the authority of the church to be greater than the textual critics, you need not look any further.
0 -
Yes he draws a very clear line separating himself from Ruckman.
0
