King James Onlyism

[lak611]

King James is a horrible translation. It is a translation of the Latin translation of the Bible, and is written in high-Shakspearian English. Thus, it was not clearly understandable at the time by most literate people at the time.

The KJV was translated into English from Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. The Douay-Rheims was translated from Latin which had been translated from Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek.

The King James onlyism is because the King James Bible was translated by the King of England who said it would be the official Bible for his country.

The translators themselves were fifty men appointed by King James. King James, himself, did not translate the Bible.

 

[heisenburg]

Brian…
Though I havent read it Ive heard the Navarre Bible is a good commentary… Its pretty extensive though… It spans numerous volumes… Anyway… Just wanted to comment

In Christ

 

[Rightlydivide]

If the KJO advocates believe in the providential preservation of the Scriptures, I suppose that they also believe that God acted through the Catholic monasteries and monks during those centuries in which they copied the bible by hand.

I can top that, part of the divinely inspired Bible was written by a fornicator and murderer, King David.

 

[Rightlydivide]

=chrysostom15;2049012] Thus, it was not clearly understandable at the time by most literate people at the time.

I was not aware of any research on the reading comprehension of literate adults in the 17th century. I am not saying it was not done, I just did not think the BRIGANCE was available that early…
Perhaps a Gallup Poll…

 

[JimG]

I can top that, part of the divinely inspired Bible was written by a fornicator and murderer, King David.

Absolutely. But as to translations, how does one determine which translation was the subject of providential preservation? Do KJO people accept a particular series of translations down through the ages–i.e, a series of predecessor to the Authorized Version?

 

[didymus]

Hi Heisenberg,

Don’t laugh too loud at King James onlyism. There is a growing number of of Douay onlyists among Catholic “traditionalists”.

Verbum

I wouldn’t advocate “onlyism” for either the KJV or DRB but there is good reason perhaps to prefer them as the common Bible for discussion so that when people are discussin a passage they’re all looking at the same thing rather than different wordin in the NAB, JB, RSV-CE, &c, &c.

 

[lak611]

I wouldn’t advocate “onlyism” for either the KJV or DRB but there is good reason perhaps to prefer them as the common Bible for discussion so that when people are discussin a passage they’re all looking at the same thing rather than different wordin in the NAB, JB, RSV-CE, &c, &c.

When I post Bible verses in threads, I frequently post the verses in multiple translations. JB is not available online, but most of the other popular translations are.

 

[rtconstant]

I wonder if the the KJV attraction is because it is in old English? It makes me think of Traditionalists in Catholicism. Anything said in Latin is automatically “reverant”. Other languages and Classical speech sounds exotic and heavy.

In terms of scholastisim I think that the RSV and NASV are usually held to be the most litteral yet they lack the poetry of the KJV so the KJV sounds more athoritative.

Whether we like to admit it or not we as a people are easily drawn in by appearances. I don’t say that to imply that the KJV is actually less worthy but I think its draw is in its language. Some people even think it’s hard to understand (which it isn’t) this also adds to the mystique that it is laying heavier wisdom on us.

 

[Rightlydivide]

rtconstant;2051642]I wonder if the the KJV attraction is because it is in old English? .

Absolutely not.

In terms of scholastisim I think that the RSV and NASV are usually held to be the most litteral yet they lack the poetry of the KJV so the KJV sounds more athoritative.

I am not even sure how to respond to this. Most literal to what? A minority group of criticial texts with an eclectic blend to suit their theology ESPECIALLY as it relates to prophecy in the OT?

 

[Church_Militant]

KJV translated with reference to the Latin Vulgate and still messed up.

Gimme a Douay-Rheims any day. It came out 2 years ahead of KJV and has all 73 books. (Just like the 1611 KJV does!)

 

[Zooey]

I have not posted, nor was I planning on posting, KJO rational on this website. I would expect you can understand the reasons. It is not a Roman Catholic issue. It is not your argument or debate but instead one that has been relegated to the most conservative of Christians. When one realizes that Bob Jones University is the liberal in this battle, you can understand why I would say that.
That people who have weighed in on this thread are uninformed about a KJO is not surprising. Like Catholic in Name Only (CINO) are ill informed about their own Catechism, so too are many KJO supporters lacking in their defense of this issues.
Now to answer your questions;
KJO advocates believe in the providential preservation of the Scriptures. Essentially that that down through the centuries God has exercised a special, providential control over the copying of the Scriptures and the preservation and use of the copies, so that trustworthy representatives of the original text have been available to God’s people in every age.
The doctrine of preservation is biblical:

As far as the question of other languages, I will quote Dr. Thomas Holland:

I can only tell you there are many Spanish and Korean brothers in Christ who DO feel like they have perfectly perserved the scriptures in their own languages. I do not know too much about that topic even though I should. I would have to email some of them to get the exact names and specifics, and can do so if someone would be interested.
As far as the Apocrypha, we do not reject it, we simply do not feel it is inspired. It was included in Bible’s of the times with various notes and such as to its place in the canon. I hope you understand how general I have to be about topics that could take days to respond in full! It is not the belief of most KJO advocates that the translators were aware they were perfectly preserving the Bible. In fact, quite the opposite. The authors of the original manuscripts themselves were not aware they were writing the infallible word of God!
As far as when KJO became an issue, it became an issue when the church attempted to use a flawed translation. Similiar to the Roman Catholic contention that your Pope has been infallible for all time when acting in the manner, the word slips me, prior to Vatican I, we likewise contend the KJ Bible was preserved perfectly since 1611.
I have run out of time.

While I don’t agree with much of any of what you are saying, I would like to thank you, just the same, for explaining your belief in reasoned tones.
Too often, I have heard o forgive me, but really!) ranting on this subject…So much so, that I had despaired of an explanation that made any kind of sense to me at all.
As I say, I don’t agree with you. But I thank you for your clarity and for your charity!!
God bless.

Gimme a

Douay-Rheims any day.

You & me both!! That & the RSV-CE are the:thumbsup: best!!

 

[Le_Cracquere]

I wonder if the the KJV attraction is because it is in old English? It makes me think of Traditionalists in Catholicism. Anything said in Latin is automatically “reverant”. Other languages and Classical speech sounds exotic and heavy.

In terms of scholastisim I think that the RSV and NASV are usually held to be the most litteral yet they lack the poetry of the KJV so the KJV sounds more athoritative.

Whether we like to admit it or not we as a people are easily drawn in by appearances. I don’t say that to imply that the KJV is actually less worthy but I think its draw is in its language. Some people even think it’s hard to understand (which it isn’t) this also adds to the mystique that it is laying heavier wisdom on us.

Well, the few KJO types I’ve seen weren’t exactly the English-major type. But you’re right that the sonority and beauty of the KJV’s language is a draw to many people. And that’s not a bad thing–you could accuse the builders of Chartres cathedral of wanting people to be “drawn in by appearances,” but that wouldn’t be fair. The builders wanted to infuse their work with beauty to the greater glory of God, and so did King James’s men.

But perhaps the point you’re making is that the KJV’s appeal is extra-religious in many ways. That’s absolutely true. The language of the Authorised Version, like that of Shakespeare, has helped make English poetry and prose what it is; it’s knit into the structure and habits of the English language, whether or not the speaker be Protestant, Catholic, or otherwise. I’ll go out on an limb: whatever Bible one consults for devotional use, not to know one’s KJV is to be less than fully literate in English. The same would be true of any Arabic-speaker who didn’t know his Koran, be he Muslim, Christian, or otherwise.

But as I said, I’m not sure that argument would mean much to the average KJOer.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

The Douay-Rheims was translated from Latin which had been translated from Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek.

Douay-Rheims Translation the Challoner Revision - The Old Testament was first published by the English College at Douay A.D. 1609 & 1610. The New Testament was first published by the English College at Rheims A.D. 1582. The whole translation was revised and diligently compared with the Latin Vulgate by Bishop Richard Challoner A.D. 1749-1752. He is also credited with the annotations included in this revision.

 

[lak611]

I don’t understand what you are saying in your post. Are you clarifying that today’s Douay-Rheims Bibles are actually Douay-Rheims Challoner revisions? I am aware of this, but I’m not sure I understand the point of your post.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

lak611:

I don’t understand what you are saying in your post. Are you clarifying that today’s Douay-Rheims Bibles are actually Douay-Rheims Challoner revisions?

No. Bishop Challoner made improvements in the translation of the Douay-Rheims. Both versions are available on the internet.

 

[lak611]

No. Bishop Challoner made improvements in the translation of the Douay-Rheims. Both versions are available on the internet.

Yes, that is true. Challoner’s revision made the Bible much more readable by eliminating many of the Latinisms.

 

[rtconstant]

Well, the few KJO types I’ve seen weren’t exactly the English-major type. But you’re right that the sonority and beauty of the KJV’s language is a draw to many people. And that’s not a bad thing–you could accuse the builders of Chartres cathedral of wanting people to be “drawn in by appearances,” but that wouldn’t be fair. The builders wanted to infuse their work with beauty to the greater glory of God, and so did King James’s men.

But perhaps the point you’re making is that the KJV’s appeal is extra-religious in many ways. That’s absolutely true. The language of the Authorised Version, like that of Shakespeare, has helped make English poetry and prose what it is; it’s knit into the structure and habits of the English language, whether or not the speaker be Protestant, Catholic, or otherwise. I’ll go out on an limb: whatever Bible one consults for devotional use, not to know one’s KJV is to be less than fully literate in English. The same would be true of any Arabic-speaker who didn’t know his Koran, be he Muslim, Christian, or otherwise.

But as I said, I’m not sure that argument would mean much to the average KJOer.

Really, I was trying to alude to both points that you’re making here. For some it is the emotions that it invokes due to its language. However, there is also a draw that appeals to our linguistic roots and heritage. The KJV points to the height of language for the English speaker.

The reason I made the allusion to the Latin Mass is because I see it being appealing for the same reasons. For some the language is exotic and heavy. To others it harkens back to our spiritual heritage with the Church of Rome. Both can be powerful.

BTW, to anyone readying my post I’m not making these arguments to be critical. I personally love the translation of the King James it is a treasure of the English language. As such I think it will always have appeal. There are certain stories and psalms in Bible that if you’re an English speaker the KJV has the definative version. The Nativity story in Luke comes to mind. When I read that I have to grab the KJV.

 

[lak611]

Really, I was trying to alude to both points that you’re making here. For some it is the emotions that it invokes due to its language. However, there is also a draw that appeals to our linguistic roots and heritage. The KJV points to the height of language for the English speaker.

The reason I made the allusion to the Latin Mass is because I see it being appealing for the same reasons. For some the language is exotic and heavy. To others it harkens back to our spiritual heritage with the Church of Rome. Both can be powerful.

BTW, to anyone readying my post I’m not making these arguments to be critical. I personally love the translation of the King James it is a treasure of the English language. As such I think it will always have appeal. There are certain stories and psalms in Bible that if you’re an English speaker the KJV has the definative version. The Nativity story in Luke comes to mind. When I read that I have to grab the KJV.

I think what you are saying about language is true. I was doing Bible study at a coffee shop once, and I had several Bibles with me: NAB, NRSV-CE, and KJV. A young man noticed the Bibles and mentioned that something was not in the Bible that is a key belief in all Christian faiths. I turned to the appropriate verses in the NAB and read them to him. He said that what I read “didn’t sound like the Bible”. I proceeded to read the same verses in the KJV. He then replied, “Oh, I guess it is in the Bible.” I found out later that the young man was a poorly catechized Catholic. He had never read any Bibles, but to him, the language in the KJV just sounded like a Bible.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

lak611:

the young man was a poorly catechized Catholic.

Then why have you drawn on his commentary as to what ‘sounds’ like a Bible? In what way was he an authoriity as to what ‘sounds’ like a Bible?

The KVJ is polysemous.

The language of the Douay Rheims Challoner is also polysemous. If the DRC went through centuries of removing whole books and parts of other books and then putting them back in – as the KJV did – then I am unaware of it.

The question is not whether or not the KVJ is polysemous. The question is whether that polysemy is comprehensive.

 

[lak611]

Then why have you drawn on his commentary as to what ‘sounds’ like a Bible? In what way was he an authoriity as to what ‘sounds’ like a Bible?

The KVJ is polysemous.

The language of the Douay Rheims Challoner is also polysemous. If the DRC went through centuries of removing whole books and parts of other books and then putting them back in – as the KJV did – then I am unaware of it.

The question is not whether or not the KVJ is polysemous. The question is whether that polysemy is comprehensive.

He probably would have said the same thing to me if I had read from a Douay-Rheims rather than a KJV. I don’t want to hijack the thread, but basically this fellow told me that the Bible never said Mary was a virgin when she gave birth to Christ (which is contrary to all Christian belief, not just Catholic belief.). I read Matthew 1:18-25 and Luke 1:31-38. After hearing those verses in the KJV, he conceded that he was wrong. I never saw him again, but I hope I might have planted some seeds and at least get him to maybe rethink what he believed. Like I said, since Douay-Rheims has similar language, he probably would have said that it “sounds like a Bible” too. And I do have a KJV with all the books in it (I have a Cambridge KJV with Apocrypha and a 1611 reprint.).