How to answer a King James Bible Christian?

[signit]

I’ve posted before (in Evangelization) about my friend the fallen-away Catholic who now attends another Christian church and says “it’s the same God.”

The other day I had a discussion with him and another ex-Catholic who attends yet another Christian church. The topic came to Bible versions. The first person just said that the King James version is “supposed to be the best” but had no real proof other than what he had heard. The second person also recommends the King James as he says it’s the most accurate and also “easy to understand” (?).

Some King James Christians go to great lengths to argue that their version is the one inspired by God and/or the most accurate. For example, this person has an “answer book” and some of the questions it attempts to answer relate to this: samgipp.com/answerbook/

So, what I’m asking is: Without a degree in sacred scripture, are there understandable arguments for our Catholic version(s) being more accurate? (I’m leaving aside the fact that the King James in its current form leaves out the books that are accepted as Scripture only by Catholics as this would not be a valid argument to a non-Catholic.)

Thanks in advance.

 

[LilyM]

I’ve posted before (in Evangelization) about my friend the fallen-away Catholic who now attends another Christian church and says “it’s the same God.”

The other day I had a discussion with him and another ex-Catholic who attends yet another Christian church. The topic came to Bible versions. The first person just said that the King James version is “supposed to be the best” but had no real proof other than what he had heard. The second person also recommends the King James as he says it’s the most accurate and also “easy to understand” (?).

Some King James Christians go to great lengths to argue that their version is the one inspired by God and/or the most accurate. For example, this person has an “answer book” and some of the questions it attempts to answer relate to this: samgipp.com/answerbook/

So, what I’m asking is: Without a degree in sacred scripture, are there understandable arguments for our Catholic version(s) being more accurate? (I’m leaving aside the fact that the King James in its current form leaves out the books that are accepted as Scripture only by Catholics as this would not be a valid argument to a non-Catholic.)

Thanks in advance.

They are NOT accepted only as scripture by Catholics but by every branch of Orthodoxy as well. In other words for more than a thousand years EVERY Christian believed and EVERY Christian pastor taught, that those books were scripture.

Why would God so permit His church to be deceived that for a thousand years EVERY Christian was wrong about something as fundamental as which books were Scripture?

 

[dmar198]

I’ve posted before (in Evangelization) about my friend the fallen-away Catholic who now attends another Christian church and says “it’s the same God.”

The other day I had a discussion with him and another ex-Catholic who attends yet another Christian church. The topic came to Bible versions. The first person just said that the King James version is “supposed to be the best” but had no real proof other than what he had heard. The second person also recommends the King James as he says it’s the most accurate and also “easy to understand” (?).

Some King James Christians go to great lengths to argue that their version is the one inspired by God and/or the most accurate. For example, this person has an “answer book” and some of the questions it attempts to answer relate to this: samgipp.com/answerbook/

So, what I’m asking is: Without a degree in sacred scripture, are there understandable arguments for our Catholic version(s) being more accurate? (I’m leaving aside the fact that the King James in its current form leaves out the books that are accepted as Scripture only by Catholics as this would not be a valid argument to a non-Catholic.)

Thanks in advance.

Bear with me, I’ll be back in a few minutes and answer your question.

 

[tobinatorstark]

The King James is a great Bible and is quite accurate, but not the most accurate. The Douay-Rheims is very similar to the KJV and it was released before the KJV. In fact the KJV borrowed heavily from the Rheims NT which was released in 1582. The Douay OT was released in 1609 and the whole thing 1610.

 

[bpbasilphx]

(I’m leaving aside the fact that the King James in its current form leaves out the books that are accepted as Scripture only by Catholics as this would not be a valid argument to a non-Catholic.)

**No, it doesn’t leave out books.

While it’s difficult in the USA, you can find COMPLETE KJVs with the Apocrypha.

I won’t have a mutilated KJV in my house.

But as far as how to answer a KJVOnlyist, ask him WHICH RECENSION of the KJV? The two generally available are the 1769 revision and the ABS version of 1904 normalized according to American spellings.

With or without the Apocrypha–and since the KJV original edition contained them, why reject them?

And so it goes.**

 

[dmar198]

Bear with me, I’ll be back in a few minutes and answer your question.

I’ve posted before (in Evangelization) about my friend the fallen-away Catholic who now attends another Christian church and says “it’s the same God.”

Well, you’ve got to hand it to him, he’s right that it’s the same God. On the other hand, that’s not really the issue. Nobody is asking which church has the right God, but which church teaches the right things ABOUT God. And that’s demonstratably the Catholic Church.

The other day I had a discussion with him and another ex-Catholic who attends yet another Christian church. The topic came to Bible versions. The first person just said that the King James version is “supposed to be the best” but had no real proof other than what he had heard. The second person also recommends the King James as he says it’s the most accurate and also “easy to understand” (?).

Some King James Christians go to great lengths to argue that their version is the one inspired by God and/or the most accurate. For example, this person has an “answer book” and some of the questions it attempts to answer relate to this: samgipp.com/answerbook/

So, what I’m asking is: Without a degree in sacred scripture, are there understandable arguments for our Catholic version(s) being more accurate?

The King James Bible is a very venerable translation. It might come as a surprise to you, but the version of the Bible used in the Catechism is a King James Bible!

Yup, that’s the case. It uses the Catholic Edition of the Revised Standard Version of the King James Bible – and if you look at the title page of the RSV, which I have in front of me right now, it will indeed say that it is “Translated from the Original Languages / Being the Version Set Forth A.D. 1611”.

Most translations available in English today are revisions of the KJV, including the American Standard Version, the New American Standard Bible, the NKJV, and the RSV. The major exception is the New International Version, the most commonly used bible. All those translations are based off of the KJV because it is a very good translation, though not perfect, and it lacks a copyright – anybody can just pick it up and revise it and produce it.

The NAB is not a bad translation, in my opinion, though some of its notes are horrible (again, that’s my opinion, and I’d be hard pressed to give examples).

Seriously, I think the best version available is the RSV-CE, the Revised Standard Version (Catholic Edition) of the King James Bible, as produced in 1966.

The reason? Well, I don’t know precisely, I just feel that it is very faithful to the Greek manuscripts that we have, unlike the KJV. The guy you mentioned deals with that objection, but unfortunately he uses circular reasoning: he says offhand that the KJV is the Bible, and says that, wherever it disagrees with the Greek manuscripts, that just means the Greek disagrees with the Bible and should be disregarded. And that’s just silly: if the Greek was good enough for the Apostles, it is good enough for me!

 

[tobinatorstark]

Well, you’ve got to hand it to him, he’s right that it’s the same God. On the other hand, that’s not really the issue. Nobody is asking which church has the right God, but which church teaches the right things ABOUT God. And that’s demonstratably the Catholic Church. The King James Bible is a very venerable translation. It might come as a surprise to you, but the version of the Bible used in the Catechism is a King James Bible!

Yup, that’s the case. It uses the Catholic Edition of the Revised Standard Version of the King James Bible – and if you look at the title page of the RSV, which I have in front of me right now, it will indeed say that it is “Translated from the Original Languages / Being the Version Set Forth A.D. 1611”.

Most translations available in English today are revisions of the KJV, including the American Standard Version, the New American Standard Bible, the NKJV, and the RSV. The major exception is the New International Version, the most commonly used bible. All those translations are based off of the KJV because it is a very good translation, though not perfect, and it lacks a copyright – anybody can just pick it up and revise it and produce it.

The NAB is not a bad translation, in my opinion, though some of its notes are horrible (again, that’s my opinion, and I’d be hard pressed to give examples).

Seriously, I think the best version available is the RSV-CE, the Revised Standard Version (Catholic Edition) of the King James Bible, as produced in 1966.

The reason? Well, I don’t know precisely, I just feel that it is very faithful to the Greek manuscripts that we have, unlike the KJV. The guy you mentioned deals with that objection, but unfortunately he uses circular reasoning: he says offhand that the KJV is the Bible, and says that, wherever it disagrees with the Greek manuscripts, that just means the Greek disagrees with the Bible and should be disregarded. And that’s just silly: if the Greek was good enough for the Apostles, it is good enough for me!

The King James Version and the RSV are quite different as is the RSV and the RSV-CE. The RSV is based off the KJV but it isn’t a modern KJV. Sorry While I am not a fan of the RSV-CE, it quite different the the KJV and to say that the KJV is in the CCC is a false statement because no actual verse contained in the CCC is sourced from the KJV, it comes from the RSV-CE and there are differences

 

[SFH]

I’ve posted before (in Evangelization) about my friend the fallen-away Catholic who now attends another Christian church and says “it’s the same God.”

The other day I had a discussion with him and another ex-Catholic who attends yet another Christian church. The topic came to Bible versions. The first person just said that the King James version is “supposed to be the best” but had no real proof other than what he had heard. The second person also recommends the King James as he says it’s the most accurate and also “easy to understand” (?).

Some King James Christians go to great lengths to argue that their version is the one inspired by God and/or the most accurate. For example, this person has an “answer book” and some of the questions it attempts to answer relate to this: samgipp.com/answerbook/

So, what I’m asking is: Without a degree in sacred scripture, are there understandable arguments for our Catholic version(s) being more accurate? (I’m leaving aside the fact that the King James in its current form leaves out the books that are accepted as Scripture only by Catholics as this would not be a valid argument to a non-Catholic.)

Thanks in advance.

The KJV is not the most accurate translation, but it is a beautiful translation none the less. It was originally published with the Apocrypha/Deuterocanonical books between the Old and New Testament (and many Anglican printings of the KJV still publish it that way). You might try a different tactic – agree with them that it’s a beautiful translation and then comment on how it’s a shame that a bunch of Protestants in the last couple of centuries edited so many pages from it (i.e., the Apocrypha).

 

[signit]

Good replies so far, thanks; but really what I’m hoping for is some evidence that the Catholic Bible(s) are the most “accurate” in that they, for example, agree with the most and/or “best” originals. The online “answer book” referred to earlier seems to make just the opposite point here and there.

The KJV is not the most accurate translation, but it is a beautiful translation none the less. It was originally published with the Apocrypha/Deuterocanonical books between the Old and New Testament (and many Anglican printings of the KJV still publish it that way). You might try a different tactic – agree with them that it’s a beautiful translation and then comment on how it’s a shame that a bunch of Protestants in the last couple of centuries edited so many pages from it (i.e., the Apocrypha).

Agreed, Catholics and Protestants respect the KJV as great literature.

This is a good argument about the Apocrypha/Deuterocanonocal books. I am aware of course that older versions of the KJV had the “Apocrypha” (labeled as such) between the OT and NT. But the counterargument seems to be (question 34) that it was included (in the KJV between the OT and NT) for its “historical” value and kept separate because it was thought not “divine.”

 

[COPLAND_3]

I am not going to argue that the KJV is not the most accurate and pick a translation that is the most accurate. Any translator with intellectual honesty acknowledges that it is impossible to produce a perfect translation from the original languages, so I get a kick out of watching people stake claims that the KJV or any other version is the most accurate when most of them have no knowledge of any of the original languages.

I have done some translating myself over the years and I recognize that there are some good translations of the Bible. The KJV is good and deserves credit, but it is foolish to claim that every other translation is inferior. Some people really cross the line of holding that translation up to level that is necessary to believe in it for salvation. CRAZY!!!

We as Catholics have the liberty to view it as a good translation, but it is not approved as a Catholic translation.

 

[adriancombe]

I am not going to argue that the KJV is not the most accurate and pick a translation that is the most accurate. Any translator with intellectual honesty acknowledges that it is impossible to produce a perfect translation from the original languages, so I get a kick out of watching people stake claims that the KJV or any other version is the most accurate when most of them have no knowledge of any of the original languages.

I have done some translating myself over the years and I recognize that there are some good translations of the Bible. The KJV is good and deserves credit, but it is foolish to claim that every other translation is inferior. Some people really cross the line of holding that translation up to level that is necessary to believe in it for salvation. CRAZY!!!

We as Catholics have the liberty to view it as a good translation, but it is not approved as a Catholic translation.

Agreed. The only ones who truly drive me bonkers are the ones who try to provide detailed, ‘intellectual’ arguments why the KJV is more meaningful theologically, or better somehow, than the actual source languages.

 

[tmancath]

The King James is a great Bible and is quite accurate, but not the most accurate. The Douay-Rheims is very similar to the KJV and it was released before the KJV. In fact the KJV borrowed heavily from the Rheims NT which was released in 1582. The Douay OT was released in 1609 and the whole thing 1610.

I agree the Douay-Rheims the best and most accurate way to defend against KJV-onlyist

 

[PAboy57]

I think books like the 300 most asked questions and the answers provided give ample ability to reply to most questions. much easier for me anyway. interesting post. thanks

 

[tweetymom]

I myself love the KJV. It is the easiest for me to understand and is quite lovely to read.

 

[06convert]

I’m not sure you really want the most accurate translation. Here is the most accurate account I can provide of a verse from John 20.

και τουτο ειπων · εδιξεν ταϲ χιραϲ και την πλευραν αυτοιϲ : εχαρηϲα ουν οι μαθηται ϊδοντεϲ τον κν ·

It’s all perspective, so I don’t know what to tell you. The differences of KJV to DRB, or NAB, or NIV are probably not something we should really worry about. You need someone you can trust to interpret correctly. I’ll go with the Church that can trace it’s roots back to when some of this was written. So read multiple versions, but leave the interpretation up to the Church.

 

[MonFrere]

Agreed. The only ones who truly drive me bonkers are the ones who try to provide detailed, ‘intellectual’ arguments why the KJV is more meaningful theologically, or better somehow, than the actual source languages.

This is SO TRUE. And then these same people go on these “word studies” and go about obliviously saying what this “really means” in the Greek or Hebrew!! Argh!

My comment here would be to always know “what kind of translation” you’re reading. Some translations are more “word or word” literal. Other translations approach a more “thought for thought” flexibility.

I think those who are KJV ONLY folks are really missing a lot; unless they really study and know how people spoke and wrote in the early 17th century and how words were used back then, they are limiting themselves to missing points that would be much more obvious simply because the translation takes into account the way we speak TODAY. (Even when I read Shakespeare it’s nice to have a guide explain the words and phraseology to things that are now obsolete in our vocabulary - which is about the same time frame.) Otherwise we all have to be historians and grammar experts of 17th century English society to REALLY understand the KJV “completely”.

MonFrere

 

[COPLAND_3]

Agreed. The only ones who truly drive me bonkers are the ones who try to provide detailed, ‘intellectual’ arguments why the KJV is more meaningful theologically, or better somehow, than the actual source languages.

There are some who are down right “holier than thou” because their congregation teaches and preaches only out of the KJV. When I was a Baptist, I considered myself very “conservative” theologically (and I am still all or nothing and full submission to my Faith), but the Bible institute I attended was very hardcore about the KJV and always made a point to “let me know about it.” In class I had one instructor tell me that I needed to throw my NASB in the trash. I failed a test in another class because I quoted from the NASB even though I quoted the correct verses. But it amazed me that even though I was a rookie then compared to them I was able to back them in a corner when we got to talking about the ancient manuscripts (I highly recommend Christians to learn a lot about them, it provides a great case for this topic). The old saying that “If the KJV was good enough for Jesus, then it’s good enough for me” is really not too sarcastic because there are many people who seem to think that passionately about it. Most of the “debates” I ever had with people on the primacy of the KJV usually ended by telling me to read this or that book because they usually did not know how to respond to someone who is informed about the transmission of the Bible and textual criticism.

 

[arcee]

If you are aking me about the Bible translation, I guest you need to go to the original text in which the original Sacred Scriptures were translated in Greek. Then from Greek to Latin (Vulgate) and then from English. If you can go into this exercise, I believe that you can truly say that you have the original translation.

 

[BerhaneSelassie]

If they like the KJV its one thing, if they are KJV only its another.

In my experience with KJV only people there is nothing you can do or say to change their minds. Some of them tend to be illogical people, the kind that believe rumors and conspriracy theories easily. One KJV onlyist said the KJV was the first English bible and called be an idiot when i said that was false. One KJV onlyist told me he believes God is 7 spirits, since the KJV in Revelation speaks of the “Seven Spirits of God” and since its capitalized according to him, it means they are God. He also told me Jehovah is the original was of pronouncing God’s name. These types of people tend to be anti-intellectual, they despise biblical scholars, because they refute their claims

The 1611 KJV was a revision of previous Protestant bibles in English, like the Tyndale and Bishop’s bible, and the Genevah, in fact one of the chief translators required that the KJV try to stay mostly unchanged from one of the translations.

To say the KJV bible is the easiest to read is a joke, its old English and uses suffixes and diction that is not used anymore. Some kjv lovers make bizarre claims biblically simply because they do not understand how to read 17th century English.

BTW the 1611 KJV also had a calendar of Feast Days and they included some of the feasts of Popes. Not to mention the Calendar for reading scriptures said to read the deuterocanonicals on certain days. Not to mention KJV in its notes cross references the LXX and Church fathers, though rarely, it even said Hebrews alludes to Maccabees.

The 1611 translators did not believe they made a perfect bible, in fact the kjv was edited countless times later…

 

[patrick457]

To say the KJV bible is the easiest to read is a joke, its old English and uses suffixes and diction that is not used anymore. Some kjv lovers make bizarre claims biblically simply because they do not understand how to read 17th century English.

One of the reasons they think so is probably because a majority of the so-called “KJV-onlyists” grew up with the revised modern-day edition AV, which prints English words in modernized spelling and punctuation. I wonder if they will say the same if they ever saw this or this. Which is one reason I think that facsimiles of the original 1611 edition need to be promulgated more.

BTW the 1611 KJV also had a calendar of Feast Days and they included some of the feasts of Popes. Not to mention the Calendar for reading scriptures said to read the deuterocanonicals on certain days. Not to mention KJV in its notes cross references the LXX and Church fathers, though rarely, it even said Hebrews alludes to Maccabees.

We’d also need to mention the most important thing here: the 1611 edition included ALL of the books that were present in the Latin Vulgate (73 books + books considered even by Catholics as Apocrypha). The standardisation of the text of the KJV after 1769 together with the technological development of Stereotype printing made it possible to produce Bibles in large print-runs at very low unit prices. Publishers found out that they could remove the ‘Apocrypha’ from the KJV to cut the printing costs and increase marketing appeal to non-Anglican readers; this wholesale removal of the ‘Apocrypha’ only came into fruition during the 18th-19th centuries. From a purely commercial standpoint, this had the added bonus of increasing the printers’ profits as they sold the Bibles on the same price had it included the books in question.

So folks, whenever a person touts the Authorized King James Version, make sure it is not a public domain 66-book version, mutilated by printers because of $$. (This is why I think the perpetual crown copyright over the KJV in the UK is also a good thing )

The hiſtory of the deſtruction of +Bel
and the Dragon,cut off from the end of Daniel.

+ Gr. Bels Dragon.

19 The fraud of Bels Prieſts, is diſcouered by Daniel, 27 and the Dragon ſlaine, which was worſhipped. 33 Daniel is preſerued in the Lions denne. 42 The King doeth acknowledge the God of Daniel, and caſteth his enemies into the ſame denne.

And King Aſtyages was gathered to his fathers, and Cyrus of Perſia receiued his kingdome.
2 And Daniel conuerſed|| with the king, and was honored aboue all his friends.
|| Or, lined with the King.
3 Now the Babylonians had an Idol called Bel, and there were ſpent vpon him euery day twelve great meaſures of fine flowre, and fourtie ſheepe, and ſixe vessels of wine.
4 And the king worſhipped it, and went daily to adore it : but Daniel worſhipped his owne God. And the king ſaid vnto him, Why doest not thou worship Bel :
5 Who anſwered and ſaid, Becauſe I may not worſhip idols made vvith hands, but the liuing God, vvho hath created the heauen, and the earth, and hath ſoueraigntie ouer all fleſh.
6 Then ſaide the king vnto him, Thinkeſt thou not that Bel is a liuing god : ſeeſt thou not how much he eateth and drinketh euery day :
7 Then Daniel ſmiled, and said, O king, be not deceiued : for this is clay within, and braſſe without, and did neuer* eate or drinke any thing.
*Ecclus. 30.19.

It’s just not the same, isn’t it?

The 1611 translators did not believe they made a perfect bible, in fact the kjv was edited countless times later…

Not to mention that the AV was not saved from printer’s typos.