King James Onlyist says it'd the most accurate. (Edited Title)

  • Thread starter Thread starter Holly3278
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
nmgauss said:
How do you know what EVERYONE knows? Jesus took his quotes from the Old Testament only, since that was all there was. The Challoner version of the Douay-Rheims Bible was published in about 1750. How could Jesus have read from this version?
Click to expand...
The first part was a joke.
 
Falco said:
My dad had this opinion - he said 'if it was good enough for Jesus, it’s good enough for me!

I gave up at that point!!!
Click to expand...
My maternal grandfather was the same way, and even said the same thing!
 
The sad thing is that the KJV was based on a translation by Erasmus that scholars today rate as very poor. There are superior translations all over the place.
 
nmgauss said:
The sad thing is that the KJV was based on a translation by Erasmus that scholars today rate as very poor. There are superior translations all over the place.
Click to expand...
It was also done by very anti-Catholic Protestants as well. Catholics have other Church approved translations to use and if a group of fundamentalists are so stuck on it, one has to wonder about it.
 
Why are you feeding this person by arguing with him or her? In my experience, arguments about religious beliefs are a waste of time. Leave the person to that opinion and pray for her/him.
 
Its really about the most ridiculous claim by any group of Christians. I admire pious devotion to things even if I disagree, because I really dont like wishy washy half hearted cafeteria Christianity. But the claim that a certain English translation is the only accurate Bible is saying that God has deprived the rest of the world from an accurate translation of the word of God. Its such a narrow and rigid and even a stupidly arrogant argument that it deserves no real effort to debate it.
 
The King James bible actually had all 73 books. It wasonly later, under the influence of Continental protestants, that it was revised.

The King James, as well as the Douay Rheims bible, are based on translations from a Latin version of the bible. The bible at the time of the New Testement was written in Greek. It makes sense that a translation from the original Greek would be more ‘accurate’ than a translation of a translation.

Both have beautiful language and are beneficial to read for devotion, but for a closer look at the ‘original’ meaning use the RSV or other translation from the Greek (or learn Greek and read the original yourself!)
 
robwar said:
I think people get caught up in the poetry of it.
Click to expand...
You bring up a good point. Poetry (alliteration, meter, etc.) is specific to a particular translation but you can’t escape it nor can you capture it as it appears in the original. As a Polish priest once said to my linguist step-brother, “the Scripture, ladies and gentlemen, is a heap of poetry – and must be studied as literature written by men.” They might have been God-inspired and all that, but there seems to be some truth in this. Seems like we have to separate romantic visions from Truth itself.
 
reagent6 said:
The King James, as well as the Douay Rheims bible, are based on translations from a Latin version of the bible. The bible at the time of the New Testement was written in Greek. It makes sense that a translation from the original Greek would be more ‘accurate’ than a translation of a translation.
Click to expand...
Except we don’t have the Greek or Hebrew originals, except the Dead Sea scrolls perhaps. I understand the Trent-approved Latin Vulgate has been updated (Nova Vulgata) in light of the research done using the latter (DSS) as well as from archaeological findings.
 
Chaplain777 said:
In my opinion the NAB is a decent enough version to read from, however, for studying I prefer the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible (New Testament) Second Catholic Edition RSV.
It is easy to read, has great commentary, and where applicable, the commentary references the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It also has a concordance, and a history of the Bible.
Click to expand...
🙂 Thanks for that recommendation. I used to use the NAB exclusively because of the USCCB footnotes. Now I prefer the Douay-Rheims, simply because of the language used. But I’ve found that many passages are confusing. I would love to have references to the CCC.
 
ProVobis said:
You bring up a good point. Poetry (alliteration, meter, etc.) is specific to a particular translation but you can’t escape it nor can you capture it as it appears in the original. As a Polish priest once said to my linguist step-brother, “the Scripture, ladies and gentlemen, is a heap of poetry – and must be studied as literature written by men.” They might have been God-inspired and all that, but there seems to be some truth in this. Seems like we have to separate romantic visions from Truth itself.
Click to expand...
I have no problem if that style of English is the preference for devotion and reading. I haven’t read the Catholic Douay Rheims but I would imagine that it equally has a very poetic style. I think what seems to be concerning is how nutty some fundamentalist get over it. My brother-in-law is a deacon in an independent Baptist/fundamentalist type Church. He feels this is the best most accurate English translation. But the English language was moved on from thee and thou. Now maybe that style does give a more sacred other world type sound. I think Op’s original question on how to deal with KJV 1611 only version and for all time nut types is what he is looking for.
 
COPLAND_3 said:
Its really about the most ridiculous claim by any group of Christians. I admire pious devotion to things even if I disagree, because I really dont like wishy washy half hearted cafeteria Christianity. But the claim that a certain English translation is the only accurate Bible is saying that God has deprived the rest of the world from an accurate translation of the word of God. Its such a narrow and rigid and even a stupidly arrogant argument that it deserves no real effort to debate it.
Click to expand...
YES! and people who get caught up in that seem to have forgotten that the English language has definitely changed from 1611.
 
Holly3278 said:
Hey everyone. A person I am chatting with on Youtube thinks that the King James Version of the Bible is the only accurate Bible to use. They say that newer versions leave out verses and such. How on earth do I come at this sort of argument. I know that the modern translations of the Bible are just as accurate if not more so because of modern scholarship but I think I need some more “ammo” so to speak in order to tackle this kind of argument.
Click to expand...
I am curious why someone would believe the KJV is the only accurate bible. Do they have rational arguments as to why? Scholarly and historical reasons? I’d like to hear why they think so. (That’s assuming they have actual reasons and not just prejudice!)
 
which edition of the King James Bible is the best?

Bottom line, through the years, the KJB has been correct in each edition.

In fact, one edition left out the word NOT in “thou shall NOT commit Adultery”

As for the missing verses, textual criticism has proven that those verses were added to the text. One can not leave out a verse that was never genuine in the first place.

For example, there are three of four endings for the book of Mark.
 
Holly3278 said:
Hey everyone. A person I am chatting with on Youtube thinks that the King James Version of the Bible is the only accurate Bible to use. They say that newer versions leave out verses and such. How on earth do I come at this sort of argument. I know that the modern translations of the Bible are just as accurate if not more so because of modern scholarship but I think I need some more “ammo” so to speak in order to tackle this kind of argument.
Click to expand...
Keep in mind that all bible translations are created from a collection of texts with variations.

The Douay New Testament was published in Rheims (1582) and Old Testament in Douay (1610) which is a revision of the Latin Vulgate, and was later revised by Challoner in 1749-1752. The Deutero-Canonical books, which were used by Jews in Alexandria, are included.

The King James was published in 1611, and included the Deutero-Canonical books that are often left out in later King James publications.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top