Fundamentalists and the KJV Bible

[fellowChristian]

what is TNL talking about? I’m a Catholic who didn’t know her history so I researched using the internet and using only non-Catholic websites and non-religious websites. That way no one could say “Oh you got that from your Catholic Church” And even though I didn’t use a “Catholic” source I still came away with the truth. It all matched with what the “Catholic” sources taught.

The Church came first, then the Salvation History was written, and finally Our Bible was put together. All before “Protestants” came to be.

King James has his translation, all we need now is George Bush to put out his version.

 

[fellowChristian]

One more thing–
When you are refering to The Word of God.
Realize The Word of God IS Jesus. Not our most sacred book. Bible comes from the Latin word meaning books.

 

[jmcrae]

397 AD: Athanasius heads a council to canonize the Bible as Protestants have it today. 39 Old Testament books and 27 New Testament books without the Apocryphal books.

The canon of the Old Testament given at the Council of Council of Carthage (397 AD; I assume this is the one you mean) is as follows:

Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Josue [Joshua], Judges, Ruth, the four Books of the Kings *, two Books of the Paralipomenon *, Job, the Psalter of David, the Five Books of Solomon [Wisdom, Sirach, Ecclesiastes, Proverbs, and the Song of Solomon], twelve books of the Prophets [Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi] Isaias [Isaiah], Jeremias [Jeremiah and Baruch], Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobias [Tobit], Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras [Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esdras], and two books of Machabees *.

This actually gives one more** book than we Catholics have in our present-day canon of the Old Testament - we don’t include the Book of Esdras from the set of the Books of Esdras; we only include Ezra and Nehemiah (which at Carthage they classified as II Esdras).

Their canon of the New Testament corresponds to our modern day canon of the New Testament.
At the end of the listing of these canons, they wrote,

“Thus it has been decided that the Church beyond the sea [meaning the Vatican at Rome] may be consulted regarding the confirmation of that canon; also that it be permitted to read the sufferings of the martyrs, when their anniversary days are celebrated.” Book of the Martyrdom of Polycarp.]

When Rome was in fact consulted, the Pope confirmed the canon of the New Testament, while making no comment on the canon of the Old Testament. The canon of the Old Testament wasn’t confirmed until the Council of Trent, which omitted the First Book of Esdras from the above canon, but kept everything else.

My source is The Sources of Catholic Dogma by Denzinger, pages 39-40.*

 

[truthnlight]

The canon of the Old Testament given at the Council of Council of Carthage (397 AD; I assume this is the one you mean) is as follows:

Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Josue [Joshua], Judges, Ruth, the four Books of the Kings *, two Books of the Paralipomenon *, Job, the Psalter of David, the Five Books of Solomon [Wisdom, Sirach, Ecclesiastes, Proverbs, and the Song of Solomon], twelve books of the Prophets [Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi] Isaias [Isaiah], Jeremias [Jeremiah and Baruch], Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobias [Tobit], Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras [Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esdras], and two books of Machabees *.

This actually gives one more*** book than we Catholics have in our present-day canon of the Old Testament - we don’t include the Book of Esdras from the set of the Books of Esdras; we only include Ezra and Nehemiah (which at Carthage they classified as II Esdras).

Their canon of the New Testament corresponds to our modern day canon of the New Testament.
At the end of the listing of these canons, they wrote,

“Thus it has been decided that the Church beyond the sea [meaning the Vatican at Rome] may be consulted regarding the confirmation of that canon; also that it be permitted to read the sufferings of the martyrs, when their anniversary days are celebrated.” Book of the Martyrdom of Polycarp.]

When Rome was in fact consulted, the Pope confirmed the canon of the New Testament, while making no comment on the canon of the Old Testament. The canon of the Old Testament wasn’t confirmed until the Council of Trent, which omitted the First Book of Esdras from the above canon, but kept everything else.

My source is The Sources of Catholic Dogma by Denzinger, pages 39-40.

The nation of Israel treated the Apocrypha / Deuterocanonical books with respect, but never accepted them as true books of the Hebrew Bible. The early Christian church debated the status of the Apocrypha / Deuterocanonicals, but few early Christians believed them to belong in the canon of Scripture. The New Testament quotes from the Old Testament hundreds of times, but nowhere quotes or alludes to any of the Apocryphal / Deuterocanonical books. Further, there are many proven errors and contradictions in the Apocrypha / Deuterocanonicals.

 

[truthnlight]

Are You Washed in the Blood?
Not according to the New International Version (NIV), New American Standard Version (NASV), New Living Bible, New Revised Standard Versions (NRSV), Revised Standard Version (RSV), The Living Bible (TLB), Today’s English Version, Contemporary English Version (CEV), International Standard Version: (ISV) and the other Per-Versions!

Revelation 1:5 clearly reads in the King James Bible:

And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, (KJB)

But you are NOT “washed in the blood” in the New Per-Versions . . .

American Standard Version (ASV) reads:

and from Jesus Christ, [who is] the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loveth us, and loosed us from our sins by his blood;
Amplified Bible reads:

and from Jesus Christ the faithful and trustworthy Witness, the First-born of the dead [first to be brought back to life] and the Prince (Ruler) of the kings of the earth. To Him Who ever loves us, and has once [for all] loosed and freed us from our sins by His own blood.
Contemporary English Version (CEV) reads:

May kindness and peace be yours from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness. Jesus was the first to conquer death, and he is the ruler of all earthly kings. Christ loves us, and by his blood he set us free from our sins.
Good News for Modern Man reads:

and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn Son who was raised from death, who is also the ruler of the kings of the earth. He loves us, and by his death he has freed us from our sins
International Standard Version (ISV) reads:

and from Jesus Christ, the witness, the faithful one, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler over the kings of the earth. To the one who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood;
Living Bible (TLB) reads:

and from Jesus Christ who faithfully reveals all truth to us. He was the first to rise from death, to die no more. He is far greater than any king in all the earth. All praise to him who always loves us and who set us free from our sins by pouring out his lifeblood for us.
New American Standard Version (NASV) reads:

and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth. To Him who loves us and released us from our sins by His blood
New Century Version (NCV) reads:

and from Jesus Christ, Jesus is the faithful witness, the first among those raised from the dead. He is the ruler of the kings of the earth. He is the One who loves us, who made us free from our sins with the blood of his death.
New International Version (NIV) reads:

and from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth. To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood,
New Living Bible reads:

and from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness to these things, the first to rise from the dead, and the commander of all the rulers of the world. All praise to him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by shedding his blood for us.
New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) reads:

and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth. To him who loves us and freed us from our sins by his blood
New Testament in Modern English (J.B. Phillips) reads:

and from Jesus Christ the faithful witness, firstborn of the dead, and ruler of kings upon earth. To him who loves us and has set us free from our sins through his own blood
Revised Standard Version (RSV) reads:

and from Jesus Christ the faithful witness, the first-born of the dead, and the ruler of kings on earth. To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood
Today’s English Version reads:

and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the first to be raised from death and who is also the ruler of the kings of the world. He loves us, and by his sacrificial death he has freed us from our sins
The shocking FACT is – NOWHERE in the new Per-Versions do they read “you are washed in the blood”!

I repeat – NOWHERE do the new Per-Versions read “you are washed in the blood”!

 

[truthnlight]

What can wash away my sins?
Nothing but the blood of Jesus.
What can wash away my sins?
Nothing . . . According to the new Per-Versions

Oh Happy day when Jesus washed my sins away! – Not according to the NIV, NASV, NCV, CEV, at al!

According to the NIV, NASV, NCV, CEV and other Per-Versions – Jesus Christ did not wash your sins away!

Why don’t we “update” our “archaic”, “hard to understand” song books?

Have you been to Jesus for the loosing power?
Are you freed in the blood of the Lamb?
Are you fully trusting in His grace this hour?
Are you loosed in the blood of the Lamb?
What can loose away my sins?
Nothing but the blood of Jesus

Isn’t it irreverent and sacrilegious that these new Per-Version people will “update” the words of God — without “batting an eye” — and yet would not dare even consider “messing with” the song “Are You Washed In the Blood”!

Aren’t you glad Brother Elisha Hoffman, the author of “Are You Washed in the Blood”, still read and believed the “updated” and “archaic” King James Bible? He might have come out with some silly occultic nonsense like Stephen Curtis Chapman’s “Lord of the Dance”, or Carman’s blasphemous “Holy Ghost Hop”, et al.

Consider the following wonderful, Christ-uplifting hymns that are contrary to the NIV, NASV, NLB, NRSV, RSV ASV, NCV, CEV, and the other “legions” (Mark 5:9) of Per-Versions!

Jesus paid it all,
All to Him I owe;
Sin had left a crimson stain,
He washed it white as snow.
— Jesus Paid It All

Just as I am, and waiting not
To rid my soul of one dark blot,
To Thee whose blood can cleanse each spot,
O Lamb of God, I come, I come.
— Just As I Am

Happy day, happy day, when Jesus washed my sins away!
He taught me how to watch and pray, and live rejoicing every day
Happy day, happy day, when Jesus washed my sins away.
— O Happy Day

Lord Jesus, for this I most humbly entreat,
I wait, blessed Lord, at Thy crucified feet.
By faith, for my cleansing, I see Thy blood flow,
Now wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow.
— White Than Snow

Blessèd assurance, Jesus is mine!
O what a foretaste of glory divine!
Heir of salvation, purchase of God,
Born of His Spirit, washed in His blood.
— Blessed Assurance

There is a blood-washed multitude, a mighty army strong;
The Lord of hosts their righteousness, redeeming love their song.
— The Blood Washed Throng

There is a fountain filled with blood drawn from Emmanuel’s veins;. . .
The dying thief rejoiced to see that fountain in his day;
And there have I, though vile as he, washed all my sins away.
Washed all my sins away, washed all my sins away;
And there have I, though vile as he, washed all my sins away.
— There Is A Fountain Filled With Blood

I don’t know about you — but thank God (and no thanks to the new Per-Versions) — “I’m Washed in the Blood of the Lamb”!

 

[lak611]

What can wash away my sins?
Nothing but the blood of Jesus.
What can wash away my sins?
Nothing . . . According to the new Per-Versions

Oh Happy day when Jesus washed my sins away! – Not according to the NIV, NASV, NCV, CEV, at al!

According to the NIV, NASV, NCV, CEV and other Per-Versions – Jesus Christ did not wash your sins away!

Why don’t we “update” our “archaic”, “hard to understand” song books?

Have you been to Jesus for the loosing power?
Are you freed in the blood of the Lamb?
Are you fully trusting in His grace this hour?
Are you loosed in the blood of the Lamb?
What can loose away my sins?
Nothing but the blood of Jesus

Isn’t it irreverent and sacrilegious that these new Per-Version people will “update” the words of God — without “batting an eye” — and yet would not dare even consider “messing with” the song “Are You Washed In the Blood”!

Aren’t you glad Brother Elisha Hoffman, the author of “Are You Washed in the Blood”, still read and believed the “updated” and “archaic” King James Bible? He might have come out with some silly occultic nonsense like Stephen Curtis Chapman’s “Lord of the Dance”, or Carman’s blasphemous “Holy Ghost Hop”, et al.

Consider the following wonderful, Christ-uplifting hymns that are contrary to the NIV, NASV, NLB, NRSV, RSV ASV, NCV, CEV, and the other “legions” (Mark 5:9) of Per-Versions!

Jesus paid it all,
All to Him I owe;
Sin had left a crimson stain,
He washed it white as snow.
— Jesus Paid It All

Just as I am, and waiting not
To rid my soul of one dark blot,
To Thee whose blood can cleanse each spot,
O Lamb of God, I come, I come.
— Just As I Am

Happy day, happy day, when Jesus washed my sins away!
He taught me how to watch and pray, and live rejoicing every day
Happy day, happy day, when Jesus washed my sins away.
— O Happy Day

Lord Jesus, for this I most humbly entreat,
I wait, blessed Lord, at Thy crucified feet.
By faith, for my cleansing, I see Thy blood flow,
Now wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow.
— White Than Snow

Blessèd assurance, Jesus is mine!
O what a foretaste of glory divine!
Heir of salvation, purchase of God,
Born of His Spirit, washed in His blood.
— Blessed Assurance

There is a blood-washed multitude, a mighty army strong;
The Lord of hosts their righteousness, redeeming love their song.
— The Blood Washed Throng

There is a fountain filled with blood drawn from Emmanuel’s veins;. . .
The dying thief rejoiced to see that fountain in his day;
And there have I, though vile as he, washed all my sins away.
Washed all my sins away, washed all my sins away;
And there have I, though vile as he, washed all my sins away.
— There Is A Fountain Filled With Blood

I don’t know about you — but thank God (and no thanks to the new Per-Versions) — “I’m Washed in the Blood of the Lamb”!

What do hymns have to do with the topic of this thread? Do you consider the hymns inspired?

 

[jmcrae]

The nation of Israel treated the Apocrypha / Deuterocanonical books with respect, but never accepted them as true books of the Hebrew Bible.

Never? And yet, the authors of the New Testament quote from the 46-book translation of the Old Testament, and not from the 39-book translation - and for good reason, since the 39-book translation didn’t exist until 90 AD. Only the Apostle John could have even known about it, let alone cared at all.

The early Christian church debated the status of the Apocrypha / Deuterocanonicals,

… for about five minutes, if that.

but few early Christians believed them to belong in the canon of Scripture.

Which early Christians are we talking about? The majority of lay people couldn’t even read the ancient languages. The first translation into a language that they could read was in the early 400s AD - St. Jerome’s Vulgate, which is still the official Bible of the Catholic Church until this very day. The entire leadership of the Church was unanimously agreed on the canon of the Vulgate Bible.

The New Testament quotes from the Old Testament hundreds of times, but nowhere quotes or alludes to any of the Apocryphal / Deuterocanonical books.

Well, they couldn’t have quoted from the other one because it didn’t even exist yet. If you look at the quotations, they are definitely quoting from the Alexandrian translation of the Greek, which has always had all 46 books of the Old Testament in it.

Further, there are many proven errors and contradictions in the Apocrypha / Deuterocanonicals.

There are also inconsistencies in the rest of the Scriptures - this indicates nothing except that human beings wrote it down - which we already knew. Someone might equally claim that the Gospels can’t be scriptural because each Gospel gives a different number of women at the tomb of Christ. Is this an “error” or a “contradiction”? No, since the subject of the Gospels is not the number of women at the tomb. Equally, God’s message to us in the Deuterocanonical books is not materially affected by whatever “errors” or “contradictions” you think you can find in them.

 

[deb1]

I thought that the original KJV had the same number of books as Catholic bibles? Am I wrong?

 

[lak611]

I thought that the original KJV had the same number of books as Catholic bibles? Am I wrong?

Actually it contained more books. The original KJV contained all the Deuterocanonicals (in the Apocrypha section). It also contained 1 & 2 Esdras and the Prayer of Mannaseh, which are recognized by the Orthodox as canonical scripture but considered to be apocrypha by the Catholic Church.

 

[deb1]

Actually it contained more books. The original KJV contained all the Deuterocanonicals (in the Apocrypha section). It also contained 1 & 2 Esdras and the Prayer of Mannaseh, which are recognized by the Orthodox as canonical scripture but considered to be apocrypha by the Catholic Church.

then why is the poster, truthnlight, using arguments against the Deuterocanonicals in his debate for the KJV?

 

[jmcrae]

Are You Washed in the Blood?
Not according to the New International Version (NIV), New American Standard Version (NASV), New Living Bible, New Revised Standard Versions (NRSV), Revised Standard Version (RSV), The Living Bible (TLB), Today’s English Version, Contemporary English Version (CEV), International Standard Version: (ISV) and the other Per-Versions!

And, why exactly would we Catholics care about all these Protestant translations?

Just FYI, we read the Douay-Rheims, the Jerusalem/New Jerusalem, the New American Bible, the Ignatius, and one other which came from the Philippines, and I can’t remember what it’s called. We also use a Catholic edition of the NRSV, but that’s the only one on your list that we might care about.

As far as being washed in the Blood of the Lamb, that happens whenever we go to Holy Communion and whenever we go to Confession.

 

[lak611]

then why is the poster, truthnlight, using arguments against the Deuterocanonicals in his debate for the KJV?

Probably because he never saw the original 1611 version, only the more recent ones that usually do not contain the Apocrypha (aka Deuterocanonicals). I happen to own an original 1611 KJV. This is it. christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product?item_no=631625&netp_id=316581&event=ESRCN|177100|57401&item_code=WW. It is quite different from any other Bible because the spelling is archaic. For instance, here’s Genesis 1:1-5 from the 1611 KJV

Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the Heauen, and the Earth.
Gen 1:2 And the earth was without forme, and voyd, and darkenesse was vpon the face of the deepe: and the Spirit of God mooued vpon the face of the waters.
Gen 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
Gen 1:4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God diuided the light from the darkenesse.
Gen 1:5 And God called the light, Day, and the darknesse he called Night: and the euening and the morning were the first day.

 

[The_Truthinator]

Can someone please explain to me the reason that many Fundamentalist Christians will ONLY read the King James Version of the Bible?

They have grown accustomed to praying in Olde English and have finally understood the usage of “thee’s, thou’s, you’s, and ye’s,” and it seems unfair to suddenly have to move on NOW.

They also are uncomfortable with the idea that the Textus Receptus could actually contain additional verses than what was originally written! To them, it is frightening to think the Bible could be corrupted (they lose sight of the fact that ALL TRANSLATIONS are imperfect renderings of the pure Word of God). It is easiest to argue that the since the production of the AV in 1611, no additional phrases, words, or verses were present in the biblical text because God preserved it. They want to avoid to difficulty and confusion (and doubt, for many) that comes with admitting the text was corrupted. What’s more, they do indeed neglect the fact that the entire Deuterocanon was included in the first edition of the King James Bible. Sounds to me like for Protestants, one way or another, they HAVE to admit A LOT of additional verses (in the form of books) were added.

Lastly, I think a lot of this has to do with tradition (for instance, “My family raised me on this version, and my church has always used it, so it must be true, must be right”) and with the elquence of the translation. Honestly, sitting down with a Moslem who will directly translate the original Arabic for me before me eyes into a verse that reads much like an Archaic translation like the KJV, might make me feel pretty inferior if I pulled out an uneloquent, basic English, reads-like-a-newspaper verse from the NLT, or something like that … I actually adore (not literally) the poeticism of the AV, but I do not use it due to its corrupted manuscripts.

So, let’s see, the preservation of this somewhat lacking translation may be attributed to:

1. Doubt brought about by the idea of corrupted manuscripts (which abound);
2. Tradition, usually in family and in church preferance;
3. Style and poeticism found uniquely in this translation;

I think these are the primary reasons the AV has all but developed its own theology.

(As a sidenote, I do know of a local Baptist church whose entire congregation and staff use NKJ, interestingly enough.)

 

[lak611]

They have grown accustomed to praying in Olde English and have finally understood the usage of “thee’s, thou’s, you’s, and ye’s,” and it seems unfair to suddenly have to move on NOW.

They also are uncomfortable with the idea that the Textus Receptus could actually contain additional verses than what was originally written! To them, it is frightening to think the Bible could be corrupted (they lose sight of the fact that ALL TRANSLATIONS are imperfect renderings of the pure Word of God). It is easiest to argue that the since the production of the AV in 1611, no additional phrases, words, or verses were present in the biblical text because God preserved it. They want to avoid to difficulty and confusion (and doubt, for many) that comes with admitting the text was corrupted. What’s more, they do indeed neglect the fact that the entire Deuterocanon was included in the first edition of the King James Bible. Sounds to me like for Protestants, one way or another, they HAVE to admit A LOT of additional verses (in the form of books) were added.

Lastly, I think a lot of this has to do with tradition (for instance, “My family raised me on this version, and my church has always used it, so it must be true, must be right”) and with the elquence of the translation. Honestly, sitting down with a Moslem who will directly translate the original Arabic for me before me eyes into a verse that reads much like an Archaic translation like the KJV, might make me feel pretty inferior if I pulled out an uneloquent, basic English, reads-like-a-newspaper verse from the NLT, or something like that … I actually adore (not literally) the poeticism of the AV, but I do not use it due to its corrupted manuscripts.

So, let’s see, the preservation of this somewhat lacking translation may be attributed to:

1. Doubt brought about by the idea of corrupted manuscripts (which abound);
2. Tradition, usually in family and in church preferance;
3. Style and poeticism found uniquely in this translation;

I think these are the primary reasons the AV has all but developed its own theology.

(As a sidenote, I do know of a local Baptist church whose entire congregation and staff use NKJ, interestingly enough.)

On a side-note, I actually defended the virgin birth of Christ with a KJV. A young man in a coffee shop saw that I was studying the Bible. I had two Bibles with me, an RSV-CE and a KJV. He told me that “no place in the Bible does it say that Mary was a virgin when she gave birth to Christ.” I then read him the appropriate verses in Matthew and Luke from the RSV-CE. He then said, “That doesn’t sound like the Bible.” I picked up my KJV and read the same verses to him. He replied, “Oh, I guess that is in the Bible.”

 

[lak611]

And, why exactly would we Catholics care about all these Protestant translations?

Just FYI, we read the Douay-Rheims, the Jerusalem/New Jerusalem, the New American Bible, the Ignatius, and one other which came from the Philippines, and I can’t remember what it’s called. We also use a Catholic edition of the NRSV, but that’s the only one on your list that we might care about.

RSV also comes in a Catholic edition, which is much better than the NRSV.

As far as being washed in the Blood of the Lamb, that happens whenever we go to Holy Communion and whenever we go to Confession.

 

[Hellisreal]

The King James is the one bible I refuse to read.

1)the translation was put together by a group of scholars in the early seventeenth century who based their rendition on a very faulty text derived from Erasmus’s edition, based on a SINGLE **12th century **manuscript!

For those who dont know who Erasmus was, Desiderius Erasmus was a humanist intellectual.

He published and produced an edition of the Greek New Testament.

That is where the KJV comes from. HIS work.

 

[jmcrae]

RSV also comes in a Catholic edition, which is much better than the NRSV.

That’s the Ignatius Bible.

 

[The_Truthinator]

On a side-note, I actually defended the virgin birth of Christ with a KJV. A young man in a coffee shop saw that I was studying the Bible. I had two Bibles with me, an RSV-CE and a KJV. He told me that “no place in the Bible does it say that Mary was a virgin when she gave birth to Christ.” I then read him the appropriate verses in Matthew and Luke from the RSV-CE. He then said, “That doesn’t sound like the Bible.” I picked up my KJV and read the same verses to him. He replied, “Oh, I guess that is in the Bible.”

Hmm … Yes. I don’t think anyone here is saying that the KJV isn’t an adequate translation that in no way is beneficial to the reader. Not so at all. What I do think is implied is that there are translations and editions preferable to it. I know a former-Catholic who is very zealous in fighting against King James Onlyism, and he once said, “Yes! You can be saved through a KJV! Of course! But, hey, I was saved through a Catholic Bible—does that mean it was an acceptable edition?” (He was saying this to Protestants who, of course, do not accept the Apocrypha.)

As far as being washed in the Blood of the Lamb, that happens whenever we go to Holy Communion and whenever we go to Confession.

One might argue we are continually being applied with the Lamb’s blood, and that forgiveness precedes penance.

For those who dont know who Erasmus was, Desiderius Erasmus was a humanist intellectual.

He also allowed himself to be pressured into ADDING verse 7 to 1 John chapter five …

That’s the Ignatius Bible.

I’ve heard a lot about this one. I might have to check it out … However, for now I’ll have to rely on Internet editions, because I’ve been broke since my purchase of the New Jerusalem Bible, which itself is a big, honking thing, yet still I love it.

 

[jmcrae]

Hmm … Yes. I don’t think anyone here is saying that the KJV isn’t an adequate translation that in no way is beneficial to the reader. Not so at all. What I do think is implied is that there are translations and editions preferable to it. I know a former-Catholic who is very zealous in fighting against King James Onlyism, and he once said, “Yes! You can be saved through a KJV! Of course! But, hey, I was saved through a Catholic Bible—does that mean it was an acceptable edition?” (He was saying this to Protestants who, of course, do not accept the Apocrypha.)

I’m afraid I may be missing your point. Is the KJV a bad Bible? I mean aside from being a Protestant Bible, of course.

One might argue we are continually being applied with the Lamb’s blood, and that forgiveness precedes penance.

Of course forgiveness precedes penance. Penance wouldn’t even be possible without prior forgiveness. I’m not sure what you’re arguing against, here.

I’ve heard a lot about this one. I might have to check it out … However, for now I’ll have to rely on Internet editions, because I’ve been broke since my purchase of the New Jerusalem Bible, which itself is a big, honking thing, yet still I love it.

My Mom really likes the New Jerusalem.