King James Only - Resources

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 [:)]

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).

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

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?

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.

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?

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…

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 https://www.logos.com/product/43193/wilbur-n-pickering-new-testament-collection

Pickering on Amazon https://www.amazon.com/Identity-New-Testament-Text-IV/dp/0989827356

Pickering website https://family35nt.org/

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)

1. 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.
2. TRonly - belief that the Textus Receptus was a reinspired Greek text, and is superior to all other Greek manuscripts.
3. 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.