King James Authorized Version is the ONLY Bible?

  • Thread starter Thread starter john_charles
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
jjoshjl:
your right… I appologize…

i feel about two feet tall right about now…

thanks for putting me back in my seat… I jsut deal with alot of anti catholic stuff on a daily basis, and soemtimes i blow up…

Carol, John, anyone else offened. I am deeply sorry
Click to expand...
Dont’ fell bad. Every thing you said is true, it’s just the way you said it that needs to be a little more touchy feelly. You know, politically correct.😉

Did Jesus say things bluntly or did he “soften it up” so as not to offend somebodies feelings?:confused:
 
40.png
Verbum:
All,

A federal commission on bilingualism was touring Western Canada. One farmer stood up and said, “I don’t know why people insist on their right to speak French. After all, the Bible was written in English.”:yup:

Verbum
Click to expand...
Reminds me of my brother. When he was about four or five we were visiting relatives in Texas, and he met some Mexican kids about his own age. Talking about them later, he said, "They’re really smart! They can already speak Mexican!"http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif
 
40.png
Malachi4U:
Dont’ fell bad. Every thing you said is true, it’s just the way you said it that needs to be a little more touchy feelly. You know, politically correct.😉

Did Jesus say things bluntly or did he “soften it up” so as not to offend somebodies feelings?:confused:
Click to expand...
It wasn’t a matter of being PC. I think what threw us is that we were all on the same page – all in agreement, so jjoshjl’s reaction was rather startling – it’s like “I agree with you, why are you getting angry with me?”

**Crazy Internet Junkies Society
**Carrier of the Angelic Sparkles Sprinkle Bag
 
Also this may help.A Protestant perspective against the MT/TR view (and other text crit related): bible.org/topic.asp?topic_id=24

Or just remind them that the KJV itself is a revision and compilation from Greek and Hebrew manuscripts through Erasmus, and then by the committee that translated the KJV. So in reality, the KJV is also a “critical scholarly text” that looks nothing like what the original Christians used…ie the LXX
 
vern humphrey:
As a Fundamentalist I once knew said, "If the King James Version was good enough for Jesus Christ, it’s good enough for me."http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon10.gif
Click to expand...
There is actually a very small group of fundementalists that believe that the King James was given to us by God in the beginning, Greek is really English, and Moses used a 1611 KJV. Thankfully it’s a small group, but the fact that it exists baffles me.

I think that Jack Chick is very King James only…
 
Protestanats in the years 100-200 AD? What were they protesting? Quick, someone go tell the Lutherans about this!!
 
john charles:
A friend of mine has left the church and now believes that the KING JAMES AUTHORIZED VERSION is the ONLY INSPIRED WORD OF GOD. It is 100% perfect with no errors and EVERY WORD IS PERFECTLY PRESERVED BY GOD?
Click to expand...
The Greeks, the authors of the bible, screwed up their bibles without even the need to translate it to a new language? Ask him about the Christians of the first 1611 years? “Guaranteed salvation since 1612.”
 
40.png
trumpet152:
There is actually a very small group of fundementalists that believe that the King James was given to us by God in the beginning, Greek is really English, and Moses used a 1611 KJV. Thankfully it’s a small group, but the fact that it exists baffles me.

I think that Jack Chick is very King James only…
Click to expand...
It’s simple statistics. If p > 0 in a long enough run, p = 1.

In other words, if you have enough people, some of them will take up any nutty idea you can imagine.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif
 
john charles:
A friend of mine has left the church and now believes that the KING JAMES AUTHORIZED VERSION is the ONLY INSPIRED WORD OF GOD. It is 100% perfect with no errors and EVERY WORD IS PERFECTLY PRESERVED BY GOD?
Click to expand...
Take a look at these articles here at this liink about the King James Bible.

The King James Bible
 
Defenders of the KJV as the Word of God rather than just one translation fall into three camps, in my experience:
  1. The genuinely ignorant who actually think that the Apostles wrote in KJV English. These people really do exist, hard as it is to believe.
  2. Those who would say that the KJV is the most perfect translation of the Word of God, and thus is the Word of God in a unique sense (compared to translations in other languages or earlier translations. This goes along with the view that English-speakers are in some sense God’s chosen people, who have been given the perfect Bible in order to bring the Gospel to the world. Again, you’d think this was made up by the folks at landover.baptist or something. But some people really do think this.
  3. Most moderately (and this probably covers most KJV-only folks who think about the matter at all), many would say that the KJV is simply one fully accurate translation of the Bible. Other translations are also the Word of God insofar as they agree with the KJV. In other words, they’re confident that the KJV is the Word of God, and they would deny this title to other modern translations. But they aren’t necessarily condemning translations into other languages or saying that they are inferior. The problem with this, of course, is that all translations differ from each other to some extent. So in a sense the more extreme folks in group 2 are thinking more carefully than the folks in group 3, and are trying to account for the fact that other translations are going to fall “short” of the KJV standard in some way.
The key point they are trying to make is actually a very orthodox one, even though it leads them to a frankly absurd position. They’re opposed to more moderate fundamentalists/evangelicals who hold that the Bible is inerrant in the original autographs. They point out that no one living has ever seen these autographs, so what use are they to us? If God would inspire an inerrant Bible, they argue, He would also provide for its correct transmission. This is an excellent point, and it should give you a good angle for arguing for the Catholic position. I know that arguing with KJV-only folks helped convince me of the uselessness of the “original autographs” theory, and played some role in pushing me toward a more Catholic understanding of the role of the Holy Spirit in preserving Scripture and guiding its interpretation.

And the Council of Trent took a very similar position with regard to the Vulgate, so perhaps you shouldn’t make fun of the KJV-only folks too much. To fundamentalists, English is about as universal a language as Latin was to 16th-century Catholics (given how dominant English-speakers are in the evangelical/fundamentalist culture worldwide).

Edwin
 
Psalm45:9:
It’s funny, that group of non-denominational anti-Catholics from the Believer’s Chapel; that comes to where I work on Saturday night; had this discussion. They were discussing the “Apocrypha”. One of them; the out spoken one; did say that they were in the Catholic Bible. (Don’t forget the Anglican Bible, the Orthodox Bible, and the Ethiopian Jewish Bible) Well one the ladies retorted that, “They’re not in my King James Bible.” I almost hit the floor at that point; I thought, “If only you knew.”
Click to expand...
correct me if i’m wrong, but…

are they still in the Anglican bible?? i thought it was the Archbishop of Cantebury who removed them from the King James bible in the
1880’s for the English Revised Version.
i thought the King James Version was the Anglican bible… the Geneva bible was the original Protestant bible…

i was raised believing that the only bible was the KJV, and i still
love reading it more than the modern versions… but, i also know
that there is history before the KJV and after… i also love reading
the 14 books that were removed from the KJV…

and i’m a recent convert, but i’ve always been interested in bible,
and religious history…

🙂
 
40.png
johnshelby:
correct me if i’m wrong, but…

are they still in the Anglican bible?? i thought it was the Archbishop of Cantebury who removed them from the King James bible in the
1880’s for the English Revised Version.
i thought the King James Version was the Anglican bible… the Geneva bible was the original Protestant bible…

i was raised believing that the only bible was the KJV, and i still
love reading it more than the modern versions… but, i also know
that there is history before the KJV and after… i also love reading
the 14 books that were removed from the KJV…

and i’m a recent convert, but i’ve always been interested in bible,
and religious history…

🙂
Click to expand...
I believe that the more Traditional Anglicans ie (Anglican-Catholics) still have them. My reason for this is because I have seen Anglican Bible studies online where they also read and discuss the “Apocrypha”.

I bought a seperate book of the KJV Apocrypha, and I have it right next my King James Bible on the book shelf, now I have the complete KJV. I did notice though that in England the Authorized Version is still printed with the “Apocrypha”. Over here it is making a comeback, but I have only seen it in paper back. I bought this seperate hard cover book, when I added it with my Zondervan KJV Bible; the whole thing cost less then if I were to by that paper back with them already in it.
 
40.png
Trick:
It really does sound like that all non english speakers and readers are out of luck ! :confused:
Click to expand...
I am reminded of my lovely (protestant) aunt who said in all seriousness one day (and in a truly loving way which is what made it so scary) “But God only understands English” :eek:
 
40.png
InnocentIII:
I am reminded of my lovely (protestant) aunt who said in all seriousness one day (and in a truly loving way which is what made it so scary) “But God only understands English” :eek:
Click to expand...
Wow. I don’t think I’ve ever heard that one.

You can find KJVs with the deuterocanonicals in them. I used to work at a Christian bookstore and we had a few. Most are published by Cambridge.
 
40.png
trumpet152:
You can find KJVs with the deuterocanonicals in them. I used to work at a Christian bookstore and we had a few. Most are published by Cambridge.
Click to expand...
I must admit I do love the language of the KJV despite its occasional lapses in translation.

And yes I have seen versions with the Deuterocanonicals. The interesting part about the Deuterocanonicals is they were excluded by protestants because they were not part of the Jewish Canon. The problem was that the Jewish Canon itself was not finalised until 70AD, after Christ’s death. The main reason for excluding them appears to have been because they were written in Greek not Hebrew and were thus considered interpolations to the original. It should also be pointed out that the Church did not determine the Canon of the OT they simply took the Septuagint as being the Jewish Scriptures and then added the NT Canon to it. When the 16th century protestants were making such an issue of accurate translation from original tongues they worked from the Jewish Canon of 70AD and assumed that the Church had interpolated the Deuterocanonicals and so rejected them, another example of a simple human error being enshrined as religious truth. Even though we now know all about the origin of these books they are still generally excluded from “protestant bibles” as being Catholic rather than being diaspora Jewish texts. Go figure!

What I find both amusing and disturbing at the same time is the Christian book stores that stock “Catholic Bibles” as though they were not real bibles at all ( the store mentioned earlier as having Catholic bibles in a special section for alternative bibles was scary). There is only ONE Bible, although it may or may not contain the Deuterocanonicals.
 
For those with an avid interest in the KJV and its inclusion of the Deuteros, even required under penalty for omitting them, Try this site. It is very extensive with original photocopies of the Deuteros as part of the 1611-1615 etc versions.
 
40.png
InnocentIII:
I must admit I do love the language of the KJV despite its occasional lapses in translation.

…
What I find both amusing and disturbing at the same time is the Christian book stores that stock “Catholic Bibles” as though they were not real bibles at all ( the store mentioned earlier as having Catholic bibles in a special section for alternative bibles was scary). There is only ONE Bible, although it may or may not contain the Deuterocanonicals.
Click to expand...
Protestants today have no interest in history and will not study their own. It is too disturbing.
They’d rather read Lorraine Boettner if they want historical reinforcement. Of course, he hated their history also, so he made up his own.
 
40.png
johnshelby:
i thought the King James Version was the Anglican bible… the Geneva bible was the original Protestant bible…
Click to expand...
I also forgot to mention that the “Apocrypha” was also in the Geneva Bible that the Puritans brought over when they landed at Plymouth Rock.

At the time of the Reformation every Non-Catholic Bible had the “Apocrypha” in it. (They were in an appendix between the Old and New Testaments)
 
Atone time it was the Official Bible of the English speaking protestant world.Now days protestants have many Bibles.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top