King James of the KJV Bible

[Malachi4U]

Daniel Marsh:

Hi Kim, James White ( the well known protestant apologetist ) has a good book on the topic worth a read.

aomin.org/kjvo.html

The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust the Modern Translations? (Paperback)
by James R. White

amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1556615752/102-8551477-2499347?v=glance

The King James Version Debate: A Plea for Realism (Paperback)
by D. A. Carson

amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0801024277/ref=pd_sim_1/102-8551477-2499347?%5Fencoding=UTF8&v=glance

One Bible Only?: Examining the Claims for the King James Bible (Paperback)
by Roy E. Beacham (Editor), Kevin T. Bauder (Editor)

Anything written by White would only be one step above the credibility of Jack Chick. I like to listen to the debates James gets into. Now that I know the Catholic Faith, I can find the missleading statements James makes easily. He is blatent also at avoiding certain questions and not giving direct answers. He can tap dance with the best government beurocrats.

When I first listened to James debate I thought he knew his stuff and made great points, now I see how he missdirects, avoids, blows smoke, and gets around the truth. He’s a great debater but that is not the same as a great apologist.

Want to see James in a double standard? Just research his position on the Bible alone. Which came first, the Bible or Bible alone belief? Where is that stated in the Bible? Etc…

Read propaganda James writes to see his art in action, his ability. Do not read his books for direction or truth or facts. His is all onesided and bias. There are several Protestant authors who are fair and honest about the Catholic Faith and their own, James ain’t one of them.

JMJ

 

[kim_wilson]

propaganda James writes to see his art in action, his ability. Do not read his books for direction or truth or facts. His is all onesided and bias. There are several Protestant authors who are fair and honest about the Catholic Faith and their own, James ain’t one of them.

JMJ

So I thought—I knew he was passionately anti-catholic and that’s enough to send a red flag up for me.

 

[Philena]

I did read James White’s “The KJO Controversy”. I thought it did contain some good information. He describes the LXX and mentions that the most ancient codexes contain the deuterocanonical scriptures, but does not address why - if the deuterocanonicals where in the most ancient MSS - they are no longer a part of the Protestant Bible.

 

[Mystophilus]

LSK:

I found the above website to be the only ‘non-religious’ reference to King James I and IV.

VI.
Sorry, but pedantry is what they pay me for.

Regarding said king, there is also this, which is not shy about his love life.

There are websites that use Jack Chick cartoons that claim the Catholic Church fostered the accusation of homosexuality in order to defame the King.

I would have thought that they would have gone for the fact that his first (supposed) lover was French, and, therefore, Catholic by nationality.

I’m just not comfortable with bashing King James

It’s not very useful, especially because the guy is long dead, and, while you may stumble upon the odd hive of KJV fans, its weakness as a translation has done considerable damage to its popularity.

 

[corkybob]

When posting to Protestants I always use the KJV. You don’t have to put down their version in order to get them thinking about what exactly do they believe.

Pax
John

 

[Petergee]

Cockney Clive:

I have often wondered why it was that the committee which King James commissioned for this great task of coming up with a reliable English language translation of the Bible, chose to write it in archaic English (I mean archaic even by the standards of 1611). I have also often wondered why it was that despite the work of these scholars there are still something approaching 32,000 errors (misunderstandings, mistranslations, glosses, etc.) in it.

Mainly because 1.the committee (of 15 IIRC) were allocated sections of the Bible in small groups of three scholars, and some of them were not very brilliant.
and 2. Their Bible was cobbled together from previous translations (whose archaic language they copied unchanged without attemting to render it into contemporary language) and included translations from some texts which have since been discredited, but were favored because some of them seemed to support protestant versus catholic teachings.

One well know simple and obvious error is that it has Jesus saying incomprehensibly that the Pharisees “strain at a gnat and swallow a camel”. Of course “at” should be “out”.