KJV 400th Anniversary - 2011

Page 1 of 1 (18 items)
This post has 17 Replies | 1 Follower

Posts 343
Jason Saling | Forum Activity | Posted: Sat, Apr 3 2010 12:05 AM

For the upcoming 400th anniversary of the King James Version, I think it would be creative for Logos to create/produce a special bundle for sale in honor of such.  Things of interest to include would be things such as...

  • KJV1611 original spelling (if possible, even in the original font face)
  • Former Translations such as the Wycliff, Tyndale, Bishops, Coverdale, Matthews, Geneva
  • Books by Reputable Scholars that favor the Byzantine/Traditional/Received Text and the KJV translation for English speaking people.  (I am NOT particularly interested in radical views by authors such as Peter Ruckman and G.A. Riplinger.)  Scholars/Authors I'm thinking of are...
  1. John Burgon (1800's) His complete works would be great!  Examples being The Revision Revised, The Last 12 Verses of Mark, The Traditional Text and Causes of Corruption of the Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels.
  2. Robert Dabney (1800's) The Doctrinal Various Readings of the New Testament Greek
  3. Ian Paisley - My Plea for the Old Sword
  4. David Cloud - Many books on Way of Life Literature
  5. Trinitarian Bible Society
  6. Michael Mayard - A History of the Debate of I John 5:7 (Currently out of print, he is working on a second edition, and am thinking  2011 might be the year he releases it)
  7. Philip Mauro - Which Version? Authorized or Revised? (1924)
  8. R.B. Ouellette - A More Sure Word (Excellent book on the subject with a healthy balance, and an easy read for those who may be unfamiliar with the debate)
  9. Thomas Holland - Crowned With Glory
  10. Douglas Stauffer - One Book Stands Alone
  11. Edward Hill
  12. D. A. Waite
  13. Thomas Strouse
  14. William Aberhart - What about the Revised Version of the Bible?
  15. David Sorenson
  16. (Plus many others, but I'll leave it with this list, perhaps others might have some other suggestions.

 

Jason Saling

Posts 249
DHG | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Apr 3 2010 1:38 AM

Jason Saling:

  • KJV1611 original spelling (if possible, even in the original font face)

Good suggestion. It should also be published in modern spelling for text comparison with other editions, very insightful.

Jason Saling:

  • Former Translations such as the Wycliff, Tyndale, Bishops, Coverdale, Matthews, Geneva

Even better suggestion! Having access to the early English translations in Logos is long overdue.

Posts 1570
HJ. van der Wal | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Apr 3 2010 9:01 AM

< Wink irony mode on >

Logos really needs to publish a good English-Dutch dictionary. There would be no need then to ask for any more English Bible translations, because everybody could start reading the Statenvertaling.

And if Logos would also publish the Annotations (Kanttekeningen) to the SV, we could all save the money we otherwise would have spent on all those different commentary series.

< irony mode off Cool >

Jason Saling:

 

  • KJV1611 original spelling (if possible, even in the original font face)
  • Former Translations such as the Wycliff, Tyndale, Bishops, Coverdale, Matthews, Geneva
  • Books by Reputable Scholars that favor the Byzantine/Traditional/Received Text and the KJV translation for English speaking people.  (I am NOT particularly interested in radical views by authors such as Peter Ruckman and G.A. Riplinger.)  Scholars/Authors I'm thinking of are...

I hope at least some of the titles you suggest will make it into production!

What do you think the chances are the Trinitarian Bible Society will give permission to use their material in Logos? Judging from their dutch partner, the Gereformeerde Bijbelstichting (I use their software next to Logos), I think those chances are rather small, but I hope I'm wrong.

I would also like to suggest two titles by professor Jakob van Bruggen (and this time I'm not being ironic):

- The Ancient Text of the New Testament (Premier, 1976) = http://www.amazon.com/Ancient-Texts-New-Testament/dp/0887560059/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpi_5

- The Future of the Bible (Thomas Nelson, 1978)

Posts 1570
HJ. van der Wal | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Apr 3 2010 9:10 AM

Those titles by Van Bruggen would of course be for a Byzantine/Traditional/Received Text Collection rather than for a KJV Anniversary Collection.

 

 

Posts 97
Al | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Apr 3 2010 3:47 PM

"Books by Reputable Scholars that favor the Byzantine/Traditional/Received Text and the KJV translation for English speaking people.  (I am NOT particularly interested in radical views"

And yet, would it be ok for those of us who would like to hear other viewpoints to hear them? 

Posts 343
Jason Saling | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Apr 3 2010 4:17 PM

If anyone else is interested in them, then that's fine.  I was just speaking for myself.  I believe those two have clearly unbiblical views and been radical/extreme with a hostile spirit in regards to their defense of the KJV.  They have made all that hold strongly to the KJV (some NKJV) (and the text it comes from) look foolish, ignorant, unscholarly, unintellectual, etc.  When there are scholarly and valid arguments why some hold to the traditional text as being superior to the critical text found in the 1800's.  But arguments that the KJV is superior because it was the 7th major English translation, therefore "purified 7 times", or because it is not copyrighted, or that the KJV is "advanced revelation" and corrects the Greek and Hebrew, are foolish and insane.  John Burgon and Robert Dabney have great scholarly reasons for why they believed the KJV was more accurate, and that the traditional text was the purest text.  And both of them were from the 1800's, not just some modern day KJV radical that claims you're not truly born-again / saved unless it was the KJV that was used in witnessing to you.

Jason Saling

Posts 260
Pastor Cleghorn | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Apr 5 2010 9:46 AM

I am not familiar with all the authors, but this project would be great! I have the Fundamental Baptist Digital Library by David Cloud and it has some of these books. I really enjoy his Way of Life Bible Encyclopedia and his book Things Hard to Be Understood.

 

Posts 216
Dan | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Apr 5 2010 1:23 PM

Jason Saling:

For the upcoming 400th anniversary of the King James Version, I think it would be creative for Logos to create/produce a special bundle for sale in honor of such.  Things of interest to include would be things such as...

  • KJV1611 original spelling (if possible, even in the original font face)
  • Former Translations such as the Wycliff, Tyndale, Bishops, Coverdale, Matthews, Geneva
  • Books by Reputable Scholars that favor the Byzantine/Traditional/Received Text and the KJV translation for English speaking people.  (I am NOT particularly interested in radical views by authors such as Peter Ruckman and G.A. Riplinger.)  Scholars/Authors I'm thinking of are...

Great idea!

Posts 343
Jason Saling | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Apr 5 2010 1:29 PM

I doubt they'll ever publish David Cloud's resources, though I emailed Logos and David Cloud that they should partner up.  I think Logos, and probably the majority of users, would think of David Cloud as being too conservative and narrow minded to be able to get enough users to purchase his set to make it worthwhile for Logos to produce.  Just like with anybody, I don't agree with everything or tactics sometimes used, but I think his writings on the Bible Version issue is well researched, documented, and balanced for one that holds to the KJV as being more accurate than modern versions.  The issue isn't the "updated English" being bad, it's the foundational Greek text used, as well as translational philosophy, scholar's/translator's view of the bible, and sometimes the men behind the work.  (Though you find faults of the men on both sides of the issue.)

Jason Saling

Posts 611
Graham Owen | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Apr 5 2010 2:06 PM

I'm not sure about the Ian Paisley work, it seems to argue that Textus Receptus is superior to the modern text because it was build without the 'fallible' texts that the Catholic Church suppressed by hiding them away and then claims that these same texts were used by the Catholic Church to corrupt the scriptures because they have always hated the true word of God. The whole book seems to reflect more about Ian Paisley and his attitude to those who disagree with him than it does about the value of the original KJV.

I for one still value the KJV although I prefer to use the NASB but I believe that the work of many who claim they are defending the KJV has done and is doing more damage to its reputation and credibility than the works and issues they think that they are defending it from.

God Bless

Graham

Pastor - NTCOG Basingstoke

Posts 36344
Forum MVP
MJ. Smith | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Apr 5 2010 2:45 PM

Graham Owen:
The whole book seems to reflect more about Ian Paisley

It would be interesting to know what manuscripts would be available if we omitted:

1) all manuscripts created and/or preserved by the Church of the East (and associated libraries and monasteries)

2) all manuscripts created and/or preserved by the Orthodox Church (and associated libraries and monasteries)

3) all manuscripts created and/or preserved by the Catholic Church (and associated libraries and monasteries)

4) all manuscripts created and/or preserved by the Gnostics and/or the Nestorians (and associated libraries and monasteries)

I think that one would be left with mighty slim pickings beyond the Masorectic, Samaritan and other Hebrew texts.

Orthodox Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."

Posts 1570
HJ. van der Wal | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Apr 6 2010 1:06 AM

MJ. Smith:

 

4) all manuscripts created and/or preserved by the Gnostics and/or the Nestorians (and associated libraries and monasteries)

 

Did you really have to mention the Nestorians in the same breath as the Gnostics? Even though both are heresies, I wouldn't lump the Nestorians together with the Gnostics. <insert tongue-in-cheek smiley>

Posts 191
Jacques | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Oct 2 2011 8:47 PM

Did this ever happen?

I can't find it in search..

Posts 36344
Forum MVP
MJ. Smith | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Oct 2 2011 10:07 PM

H.-J.van der Wal:
I wouldn't lump the Nestorians together with the Gnostics.

True - and much of the Church of the East has Nestorian roots hidden in some corner. But there are wonderful bits of Gnostic and Nestorian fragments strewn along the old Silk Route which is why I thought to stick them together. Sogdian? Khotanese? Uighur? Chinese? any one?

Orthodox Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."

Posts 36344
Forum MVP
MJ. Smith | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Oct 2 2011 10:09 PM

Jacques:
Did this ever happen?

not yet ... maybe never

Orthodox Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."

Posts 687
Douglas | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Oct 2 2011 11:09 PM

Jason Saling:

If anyone else is interested in them, then that's fine.  I was just speaking for myself.  I believe those two have clearly unbiblical views and been radical/extreme with a hostile spirit in regards to their defense of the KJV.  They have made all that hold strongly to the KJV (some NKJV) (and the text it comes from) look foolish, ignorant, unscholarly, unintellectual, etc.  When there are scholarly and valid arguments why some hold to the traditional text as being superior to the critical text found in the 1800's.  But arguments that the KJV is superior because it was the 7th major English translation, therefore "purified 7 times", or because it is not copyrighted, or that the KJV is "advanced revelation" and corrects the Greek and Hebrew, are foolish and insane.  John Burgon and Robert Dabney have great scholarly reasons for why they believed the KJV was more accurate, and that the traditional text was the purest text.  And both of them were from the 1800's, not just some modern day KJV radical that claims you're not truly born-again / saved unless it was the KJV that was used in witnessing to you.

My favorite points made by Gail Riplinger, are the attributions to the "Omissions" of modern translations. From what I understand the past translations of the text remained mostly unaltered, and basically the same. So, from my perspective, start with the KJV (5th grade reading level compared to our modern ones) and then move out once you have a solid Spiritual foundation.

Of course you could always go the "Smart" way and take classes "George 101, and George 102" if you so feel in inclined. <tongue in cheek>

Posts 36344
Forum MVP
MJ. Smith | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Oct 2 2011 11:22 PM

Douglas:
From what I understand the past translations of the text remained mostly unaltered, and basically the same.

I'm not sure about that. What time frame and language are you referring to?

Orthodox Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."

Posts 4
David Beatty | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Nov 4 2011 9:51 AM

I would love to see David Cloud's material on Logos.

Page 1 of 1 (18 items) | RSS