King James Authorized Version is the ONLY Bible?

[viktor_aleksndr]

It is sad that the Original text in Greek is not anymore the true bible.

By the way, Is it written in the KJV Bible that their version is the only correct translation?
Then let them post the Chapter and the verse in the Bible. I guess they love posting chapters and verses in the bible.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

trumpet152:

Why 46? Anything special about that?

I dont know , Psalm 46, 46th word from the start, 46th word from the end, KJV only dont count “selah’s”

 

[Sanctus]

Catholic Dude:

I dont know , Psalm 46, 46th word from the start, 46th word from the end, KJV only dont count “selah’s”

Very Very intresting…though it appears someone has WAY too much time on their hands

 

[dancus]

Sanctus:

Very Very intresting…though it appears someone has WAY too much time on their hands

How true. However it’s nice to discover “The Bible Code” still has it’s followers. I’m still grappling with playing Beatles songs backwards. Anyone remember that gem? Dan

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Sanctus:

Very Very intresting…though it appears someone has WAY too much time on their hands

I wish I could take credit for that but I didnt come up with it, however after showing people that I have suggested the same set up with Psalm 119, 119th word from the start, 119th from the end…just to see if they would fall for it.

 

[seeker63]

Well, I do think the KJV represents, along with the works of Shakespeare, the most beautiful examples of written English anywhere.

While all the abundance of translations may be a good thing, it seems it’s harder for people to actually learn verses and passages now. The KJV has a flow and a majesty to its language that makes it easy to remember. Every other version I’ve read sounds flat compared to it.

 

[trumpet152]

seeker63:

Well, I do think the KJV represents, along with the works of Shakespeare, the most beautiful examples of written English anywhere.

While all the abundance of translations may be a good thing, it seems it’s harder for people to actually learn verses and passages now. The KJV has a flow and a majesty to its language that makes it easy to remember. Every other version I’ve read sounds flat compared to it.

And that is by far an acceptable position. There are some militant protestants who use nothing but the King James, and others that refuse to use the King James. You seem to have a balanced view of it.

 

[InnocentIII]

seeker63:

While all the abundance of translations may be a good thing, it seems it’s harder for people to actually learn verses and passages now. The KJV has a flow and a majesty to its language that makes it easy to remember. Every other version I’ve read sounds flat compared to it.

An interesting point. The language of the Book of Common Prayer is similar and likewise gave us many quotes still in use. My objection to the vernacular mass is not that it is in the vernacular but that it is in a banal and uninteresting vernacular. It sounds like a bad speech from a school speech day. While I think nothing will ever replace the sonority of Latin, I think Cranmer’s Prayer Book shows what can be achieved as far as writing in a language suitable for something as special as worshipping God. A lot of the objections to the vernacular mass would I think disappear with more suitable translations.

 

[Zooey]

I can never resist telling this story when the subject of “King James Onlyism” comes up:
One set of my great-grandparents were immigrants to the U.S. from the Netherlands. They came over in steerage, with a trunk containing all their earthly possessions, including my great-grandmother’s beloved Dutch Bible.
Some years ago, I mentioned this Bible to a KJV-onlyist, who asked me if it was the King James version…
I said, “They were Dutch. Neither one ever learned to read in English”…
Response:“Yes, but is it the Dutch King James Version?”

This only sounds like a joke.:nope:

KJV really is a beautiful translation. I also have added a copy of the “Apocrypha” in its own hardcover to mine…I just wish that the kind of idiocy that inspires what amounts to very real superstition regarding KJV didn’t keep me from being entirely comfortable reading it…

 

[dancus]

InnocentIII:

The term deuterocanonicals was used by one of the Sixtuses in the 1500s. It just meant they were accepted into the canon later than the other books.

I’m sorry, I thought I made that clear. However there was only one Pope with that name in the 1500s, Sixtus V. Is this the Pope to which you refer? The only reason I remember him was due to his extreme Nepotism. Elevating ones 14 year old grand nephew to Cardinal, does tend to get one remembered. I noticed you made reference, in another post, to Henoch(Enoch), 3rd & 4th Maccbees and that list goes on. Assumption of Moses, Book of Thomas, Acts of St.Paul…They are the Apocryphal Books, as such not considered inspired by the Church. Although I don’t think there’s an injuction against reading them. I would check with someone in authority. I’ve read them all, but most know on these threads. I march to a different beat then most Catholics. Dan

 

[InnocentIII]

dancus:

I’m sorry, I thought I made that clear. However there was only one Pope with that name in the 1500s, Sixtus V. Is this the Pope to which you refer? The only reason I remember him was due to his extreme Nepotism. Elevating ones 14 year old grand nephew to Cardinal, does tend to get one remembered. I noticed you made reference, in another post, to Henoch(Enoch), 3rd & 4th Maccbees and that list goes on. Assumption of Moses, Book of Thomas, Acts of St.Paul…They are the Apocryphal Books, as such not considered inspired by the Church. Although I don’t think there’s an injuction against reading them. I would check with someone in authority. I’ve read them all, but most know on these threads. I march to a different beat then most Catholics. Dan

That’s him. I love his name in Latin - Sixtus Quintus. Perhaps we should have had a Quintus Sixtus

About the other books there is of course a lot of differences especially with some Orthodox churches. We use Apocrypha as you point out for books which are not considered inspired and deuterocanonicals for those added later. Protestants eliminated them and called them The Apocrypha. They are generally ok to read but some of the New Testament Apocrypha can be a bit suss especially some of the Gnostic gospels.

 

[Contarini]

TNT:

Protestants today have no interest in history and will not study their own. It is too disturbing…

This is indeed a problem, but it’s a problem with most Catholics as well. You guys are the exception to the rule. Never forget that! Contempt for history is a blight on our culture as a whole–though if you want to say that it’s partly the fault of the Reformation, I’m open to hearing the argument.

They’d rather read Lorraine Boettner if they want historical reinforcement. Of course, he hated their history also, so he made up his own.

You seriously think most Protestants have even heard of Boettner? A few read Boettner, and they incorporate his arguments into tracts and pamphlets that fundamentalists read and accept unquestioningly.

Edwin

 

[sparkle]

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?

HA! My whole huge Protestant family all believe THIS is THE BIBLE, “the one inspired by God” and no other. They say "oh those Catholic Bibles have all those “extra” books. I have tried to gently point out, that hey, the Church came before the Bible, and the Bible was put together by Catholics. Love that book by Graham “Where We Got the Bible”. A must to send to any interested party! and to read. (Send this friend one john charles)!!!

 

[dancus]

InnocentIII:

That’s him. I love his name in Latin - Sixtus Quintus. Perhaps we should have had a Quintus Sixtus

About the other books there is of course a lot of differences especially with some Orthodox churches. We use Apocrypha as you point out for books which are not considered inspired and deuterocanonicals for those added later. Protestants eliminated them and called them The Apocrypha. They are generally ok to read but some of the New Testament Apocrypha can be a bit suss especially some of the Gnostic gospels.

Sorry my Latins rusty. The Gnostic gosples don’t shake my faith. I could feel at home in the Gnostic doctrine of “Salvation through Knowlege.” I split when they get into the Duality. That aside and back to the thread. While it’s true the KJV omit seven books, they all precede the Prophetic Books. Of those books they only exclude Baruch, at best the least read of all. As you know a Non-Catholic Christialn could retaliate, the KJV contains the full work of Daniel, not just parts. We needn’t go into that and bore folk. Dan

 

[trumpet152]

sparkle:

HA! My whole huge Protestant family all believe THIS is THE BIBLE, “the one inspired by God” and no other. They say "oh those Catholic Bibles have all those “extra” books. I have tried to gently point out, that hey, the Church came before the Bible, and the Bible was put together by Catholics. Love that book by Graham “Where We Got the Bible”. A must to send to any interested party! and to read. (Send this friend one john charles)!!!

Maybe you should mention that until the 1800s, every King James printed had those “extra” books.

 

[La-Petite-Fleur]

I always thought that was a really strange thing for people to believe. The King James Bible is a very tattered and incomplete Bible. I wonder if the people who say “King James Bible & only King James Bible” even really know the story of King James… or better yet, believe that a Bible should really be named after him. What is even more odd is that they blame Catholics for placing our faith in man (they think the Catholic Church is of men, and not inspired by the Holy Spirit), but they believe in King James’ Bible. That’s a lot of faith to put in one man. Anyway, “King James & only King James” isn’t a Biblical thing to say. Strange indeed.