Dr. Sam Gipp explains KJVO

8/4/2015 UPDATE: Dr. Gipp got his own YouTube channel and the original vimeo account put a password on all the old videos, so I’m embedding the YouTube clips below including the two newer ones (Episode 6 and Episode 7).

One of these days, I’m going to engage in a more thorough rebuttal of the King James Only position (I think it’s not just wrong; it’s indefensible and spiritually dangerous), but in the meantime, you can see the classic confrontation on the issue here.

——————–

We haven’t looked at much King James Onlyism (KJVO) in quite some time, but a Biblical tools course brought it back to me this past week and I found some interesting things.

Unusually, I’m going to turn this humble corner of the internet into a vblog. The reason for this it that we have access to what the strongest proponents and opponents of KJVO have to offer in their own words and on camera.

To kick things off, I’d like to introduce you all to Dr. Sam Gipp. He has been a strong and outspoken KJVO advocate for 40+ years and he has put together a series of videos explaining the KJVO arguments and counter-arguments.

I’ve imbeded them below, but for those of you seeing this in e-mail, you can view them here (updated 12/16): Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4. Episode 1, Episode 2, Episode 3, Episode 4, Episode 5. (updated 8/11/2015): Episode 1, Episode 2, Episode 3, Episode 4, Episode 5, Episode 6, Episode 7.







Let me know what you think!

3 thoughts on “Dr. Sam Gipp explains KJVO

  • November 12, 2013 at 10:27 pm
    Permalink

    So, Laura and I happened to be sitting next to one another and watched the first few… I finished watching the rest and we were intrigued by the first one mainly. I hadn’t heard or seen the KJVO position presented so nicely. Mostly it’s the raving people I’ve come across, who by their half mad appearance and insistence insist their right without having any real proofs…

    Dr. Gipp comes across more reasonable. So presentation notes aside…

    It did have me reading all your other posts on the issue, and now has me looking into the history of the texts in general. I do have a couple issues outside what he addressed, but that was fun. Two examples:
    1. Why not just used the Antioch greek manuscripts/TR? If it is unpolluted why use the KJV at all, it’s a translation?
    2. What do missionaries do? Laura knows a lady who stopped supporting missionaries because they didn’t use the KJV with the foreigners. Apparently she expects everyone to learn (old) English to read their Bibles… I feel like I’m talking with a Muslim about the Koran in Arabic again…

    • November 14, 2013 at 8:06 am
      Permalink

      Hey brother! Sorry your comment didn’t get approved earlier. You’re on the “pre-approved’ list now. Don’t spam me. :-)

      I love this topic because it forces me to dive into the Bible’s transmission history, my favorite topic.

      To your first point, I think they would say that the KJV supersedes the original manuscripts. I just posted Dr. Gipp’s statements saying so. Basically, for the extreme KJV-Onlyist (like Dr. Gipp), any discussion about manuscripts or TR is a smoke screen because, as he says, if the original contradicts the KJV, then KJV wins.

      I’ll get into more of this later, but the deal with KJV-onlyism is that it’s not a historical or textual conversational one, it’s a doctrinal one. KJV-Onlyist cling to the KJV for doctrinal reasons, not historical or empirical ones. This presentation explains the position: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RL1px3GRfo4

      What drives me nuts about these is, I have yet to hear a KJV-Only advocate get the transmission history right. Even in the link I just gave you (presented in 2010), says that KJV comes from the Majority Text (5,321 manuscripts) when it was actually translated from Erasmus’s Greek text which used 6-12 manuscripts. It drives me crazy.

      To your second point, yes, their doctrine (again, it’s a doctrine) is closer to a Muslim’s understanding of Scripture than a Protestant’s understanding. It’s really…weird. It seems like we had a clash of arguments about whether or not we should leave the traditional text in favor of translation. But it seems to me that KJV Only advocates want to relitigate the issue and they take the side of, well, those who didn’t want the KJV. The whole thing is so odd to me.

  • Pingback: Dr. Sam Gipp defends KJVO | David Knopp

Comments are closed.