KJV is the best Bible?

[DanteAlighieri]

Please help me refute this claim:

Non-denom mentions (as a support for a particular non-denom belief) in passing that the KJV “is the best Bible because the men who wrote [read: *translated] it were all ordained”.

The obvious implication of this claim is that no other translators were ordained, and therefore their translations are less reliable. Here is my understanding in a nutshell:

1. St. Jerome was, in fact, ordained, as were all of the NT writers.
2. The KJV is based on Greek manuscripts that are suspect.
3. The Vulgate is very faithful to the letter and spirit of the original texts (or oldest surviving copies), and the D-R is the most faithful translation of the Vulgate.

Furthermore, this particular non-denom was raised in something of an anti-Catholic environment (but is no longer an anti-Catholic), and so likely has been given many reasons to believe this claim. Given that neither of us is a Scripture scholar, what would be the best way to pursue this debate?

Peace,
Dante

 

[Joel_Tunnah]

No one bible is best. The KJV has some nice readings, especially in the psalms, but ultimately it’s a protestant bible, no matter who translated it:

KJV - Luke 1:28
And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.

DR - Luke 1:28
28 And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.

 

[SyCarl]

Please help me refute this claim:

Non-denom mentions (as a support for a particular non-denom belief) in passing that the KJV "is the best Bible because the men who wrote [read: *translated

] it were all ordained".

The obvious implication of this claim is that no other translators were ordained, and therefore their translations are less reliable. Here is my understanding in a nutshell:

1. St. Jerome was, in fact, ordained, as were all of the NT writers.
2. The KJV is based on Greek manuscripts that are suspect.
3. The Vulgate is very faithful to the letter and spirit of the original texts (or oldest surviving copies), and the D-R is the most faithful translation of the Vulgate.

. Given that neither of us is a Scripture scholar, what would be the best way to pursue this debate?

Peace,
Dante

Sounds like you have run across a King James Onlyist. If so you are not likely to convince him of anything.
The King James is a good translation but it is a matter of opinion whether it is the best. Certainly from a Catholic point of view it does not usually contain the Deuterocanonical Books, although it originally did between the Old and New Testament. It is based on the Textus Receptus of Erasmus who had only a few Greeks manuscripts to work with. However, it is in line with the Byzantine texts which represent the majority of surviving manuscripts. They make up about 95% of the available manuscripts. Most modern bibles, including Catholic ones are based on the Alexandriam school of texts which are older but disagree among themselves considerably.

I do not know if all the transalators of the King James Version were ordained. Even if they were, most modern translations have been done by committees of well qualified translators. The King James does contain errors such as Matthew 23:24 which reads “strain at a gnat” rather than “strain out a gnat”. It also contains the longer 1 John 5:7 reading which apparently only exists in a few later Greek manuscripts.

While the Vulgate was approved by the Council of Trent, it does have the disadvantage, at least in my view, of being a one man translation. This does not make it wrong but if the one man chooses a word in the receptor language that may not be the best equivalent, there is no one to correct this. In favour of the Vulgate of course is the Jerome would have had earlier manuscripts, although we do not how which ones or how many he had. When it comes to the Deuterocanonical books, I don’t know good the transaltion is as Jerome did not think much of them and spent little time on them. For instance, he spent only one day on Tobit and one evening on Judith.

BEGINNING OF THE PROLOGUE TO TOBIAS

Jerome to the Bishops in the Lord Cromatius and Heliodorus, health!

I do not cease to wonder at the constancy of your demanding. For you demand that I bring a book written in Chaldean words into Latin writing, indeed the book of Tobias, which the Hebrews exclude from the catalogue of Divine Scriptures, being mindful of those things which they have titled Hagiographa. I have done enough for your desire, yet not by my study. For the studies of the Hebrews rebuke us and find fault with us, to translate this for the ears of Latins contrary to their canon. But it is better to be judging the opinion of the Pharisees to displease and to be subject to the commands of bishops. I have persisted as I have been able, and because the language of the Chaldeans is close to Hebrew speech, finding a speaker very skilled in both languages, I took to the work of one day, and whatever he expressed to me in Hebrew words, this, with a summoned scribe, I have set forth in Latin words. I will be paid the price of this work by your prayers, when, by your grace, I will have learned what you request to have been completed by me was worthy.
tertullian.org/fathers/jerome_preface_tobit.htm

BEGINNING OF THE PROLOGUE TO JUDITH

Among the Hebrews the Book of Judith is found among the Hagiographa, the authority of which toward confirming those which have come into contention is judged less appropriate. Yet having been written in Chaldean words, it is counted among the histories. But because this book is found by the Nicene Council to have been counted among the number of the Sacred Scriptures, I have acquiesced to your request, indeed a demand, and works having been set aside from which I was forcibly curtailed, I have given to this (book) one short night’s work translating more sense from sense than word from word. I have removed the extremely faulty variety of the many books; only those which I was able to find in the Chaldean words with understanding intact did I express in Latin ones.
tertullian.org/fathers/jerome_preface_judith_e.htm

 

[SpiritMeadow]

If you are dealing with a fundie, you will never change their mind. Most of them will not even touch the NKJV. Apparently the translation supports the self-interpretation they give to the text, stuff like born again, instead of born from above. They are ugly about it if confronted, yet by all reasonable accounts it is a poor translation by todays standards which lends to misinterpretation.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

Remember the old claim - If the KJV was good enough for lJesus and the Apostles, it’s good enough for me. **

 

[Joel_Tunnah]

Please help me refute this claim:

Non-denom mentions (as a support for a particular non-denom belief) in passing that the KJV “is the best Bible because the men who wrote (read: translated) it were all ordained”.

Well, since being ordained doesn’t imply any particular skill in translation, your friend seems to be saying that being ordained would help produce a more theologically accurate translation. We can refute that, from a catholic persepective, with one verse from the KJV:

Luke 1:28
And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.

 

[veritashunter]

Recently, I was a phone-in caller on a Columbus, OH Protestant radio program called “Bob Burney, Live!”. One of the things that he brought up was that old argument about “The King James Bible - The One and Only!”. I will share with you what I shared with him:

1. The KJV that is now used in Protestantism is not the original KJV…not even close. In fact, the 1611 Original KJV is more Catholic than Protestant as it contains the Dueterocanonicals (called “Apocrapha” by American Protestants). These were later removed, but included by the original translators.
2. It is also prone to many many major errors. One example is the inclusion of the “for thine is the kingdom, the power, and the glory…now and forever” as Christ’s words in Sacred Scripture as part of the Our Father. This is not so and was mistakenly included because they used many imprecise secondary Greek texts for translation. This was due to the destruction of many earlier Greek texts by King Henry VIII when he burned over 500 Catholic monestaries and churches containing the best and most original texts available in England at the time. And, since Englands abdication and heresy against the True Church the translators couldn’t just go to Rome and look it up in the “most original texts” surviving. This error was later corrected.
3. There have been many heresies taught in Protestantism due to the reliance on direct English translational language meanings rather than the use of Aramaic, Greek, and Hebrew. Again, “the brethren of Christ” misinterpreted as “the siblings of Christ”. Why? Because in ancient Aramaic and Hebrew there is no word for “cousin, stepbrother, half-brother, step-sibling, neice, nephew, etc.” Just look at the census taken of all of the Hebrew tribes. It was always expressed as “the brother of, son of, daughter of, mother of, sister of, etc.” Lot was called the brother of Abraham in the Book of Genesis but we see that he is later described as the “Son of Abraham’s brother”. Why not just say Abraham’s nephew? Simple…there is no such word at the time.
4. From this point Mr. Burney said that “it says so in the King James Bible”. I then pointed out to Mr. Burney that his contention essentially is that the English language that was not yet developed on the earth at the time of Christ was more accurate than the original language that our Lord chose to use which was Aramaic. Aramaic is a semitic language…English is not. English is a combination of Germanic, Latin, Celt, Nordic, and Erin (Irish). There are words in English that do not exist in Aramaic and vice versa. So, how could English be more accurate than Aramaic in communicating the exact words of our Lord? And, moreso, the Chaldean Rite of the Catholic Church still celebrates the Mass in its original language of Aramaic as do other Arab Catholic and Arab Orthodox Rites. His retort was that “In my 40 years of studying the Bible it’s my experience that if you have to resort to the original languages then you’re in trouble.” No logic…just blind rambling rhetoric.
5. The KJV was also a rushed translation as it was trying to compete with the Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible that had just been published. Some of the texts were literally copied word for word in places from the Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible in an attempt to catch up.
6. The Puritans went so far as to refuse to use the KJV. They felt it was too crude in the modern English language to be trustworthy. So if the KJV wasn’t good enough even for the English Protestant Puritans than why would a Protestant want to use it? Who knows?

If they do not believe you just tell them to buy a 1611 KJV and compare the text. Hendrickson Publishers offer a great copy of the original for about $30. Even a cosmetic comparison immediately shows that the KJV is still a “work in progress” being tweeked and adjusted even as we speak as it differs so very much from the real 1611 KJV in language (modernized English versus the original English used), textual content, and Canon. It is strewn with inserts and ommisions…take your pick.

The math just does not add up. The flaws in the KJV are not minute…one could drive a MACK truck through them. Hundreds of them.

There is a good book devoting chapter to this. It is called “In Defense of the Faithful - The Scriptural Truth of Catholicism”.

What will really make the point is to show them the differences and ask them to explain why Protestants changed the KJV so much if it is so precise and concise. You can get a copy of the Hendrickson Publisher reprint of the 1611 KJV through any public library for free.

God bless.

 

[DanteAlighieri]

Thank you all for your responses, especially veritashunter – what a great post! I think my attempts to defend the faith failed; the person in question resorted to calling me “brainwashed” and “refusing to believe” that the Church could be the one that Christ founded – and then ended the discussion.

Oh well…

Peace,
Dante

 

[Pax]

Give your friend the following information:

Errors in the King James not found in the Septuagint

1. The scripture specifically mentions seven nations that the Israelites were forbidden to enter into covenants with. All seven are listed in Deuteronomy 7:1. But for some reason, when these “seven” nations are repeated in other parts of scripture, the KJV deletes one of them, the Girgashites, whereas the Septuagint retains all seven of them (Exodus 23:23; 34:11). Likewise, Genesis 15:21 lists five nations, but the King James deletes one of them, the “Evites.”
2. In Acts 7:14, Stephen relates the story of the Israelite nation and refers to 75 people who traveled from Canaan to Egypt in the emigration of Jacob’s family. Genesis 46:27 and Exodus 1:5 in the King James falsely state “70.” Genesis 46:27 and Exodus 1:5 in the Septuagint correctly read 75, which agrees with Acts 7:14. The Old Testament books, in most bibles, is translated from a corrupted Masoretic Text, which is why “70” is mistranslated at Genesis 46:27 and Exodus 1:5 in most bibles.
3. In the King James bible, 2 Samuel 24:13 says there would be seven years of famine, but 1 Chronicles 21:12 says three years of famine. In the Septuagint, both verses accurately read three years of famine.
4. In the King James bible, 2 Kings 8:26 says Ahaziah was 22 years old when he began his reign, 2 Chronicles 22:2 says he was 42 years old. The Septuagint accurately reads 22 years old for both.
5. In the King James Bible, 1 Kings 5:16 says there were 3300 overseers, and 2 Chronicles 2:18, speaking of the same thing, says there were 3600 overseers. In the Septuagint, both verses accurately read 3600 (3600 is also confirmed in III Kings, chapter 3, first paragraph, in the Septuagint).
6. Speaking of the same exact event, the King James Bible says there were 700 horsemen in 2 Samuel 8:4, but 7000 horsemen in 1 Chronicles 18:4. In the Septuagint, both verses accurately read 7,000 horsemen.
7. In the King James Bible, 1 Kings 7:26 says there were 2000 baths, and 2 Chronicles 4:5 says there were 3000 baths. In the Septuagint, 1 Kings 7:26 does not exist, so there’s no contradiction.
8. In the King James Bible, 1 Kings 9:23 says there were 550 people that bear rule, and 2 Chronicles 8:10 says that 250 people bear rule. In the Septuagint, 1 Kings 9:23 does not exist, so there’s no contradiction.
9. In Joshua 10:15, where this verse is omitted in the Septuagint, it can easily be seen that this verse, in the King James, does not belong and is out of place. Because the Israelitish army did not return to the camp at Gilgal till after the hanging of the five kings and the destruction of their cities. This is sufficiently evident from the subsequent parts of this chapter. When all this business was done, and not before, is when they returned to the camp to Gilgal (see Joshua 10:43). This verse is omitted by the Septuagint; and it does not appear to have existed in the ancient hexaplar versions; it stands in its proper place in Joshua 10:43, and is not only useless in Joshua 10:15, but appears to be an encumbrance to the narrative. Should it be considered as genuine and in its proper place, I would propose that the camp at Gilgal should be read instead the camp at Makkedah, for we find from Joshua 10:21 that Joshua had a temporary camp there, after which we may suppose that Joshua having secured the cave, sent some detachments to scour the country and cut off all the remaining straggling Canaanites; when this was done they also returned to the camp at Makkedah, as is related Jos 10:21, and when the business was completed they struck the camp at Makkedah, and all returned to their fortified camp at Gilgal (Joshua 10:43).

 

[whatistruth]

this one will really scare you:
Read Jeremiah 33:17 in the KJV-“For thus says the Lordavid shall never want a man to sit upon the the throne of the House of Israel.”
All other Catholic Bibles state “for thus says the Lord: David shall never lack a man to sit on the throne of the house of Israel”

This is a significant contradiction!

 

[DanteAlighieri]

this one will really scare you:
Read Jeremiah 33:17 in the KJV-“For thus says the Lordavid shall never want a man to sit upon the the throne of the House of Israel.”
All other Catholic Bibles state “for thus says the Lord: David shall never lack a man to sit on the throne of the house of Israel”

This is a significant contradiction!

Actually, this is only a contradiction if you interpret want the wrong way.

The word want can mean 1) to desire, 2) a desire, 3) to lack, or 4) a lack.

If you take it as to lack, both verses mean the same thing.

Peace,
Dante

 

[whatistruth]

I am not sure what you are trying to say? it is clearly a contradiction. David clearly wanted another man to sit on his throne and that would be his son Solomon who is the forerunner of the True Son,i.e. Jesus Christ, lord of Lords and king of Kings who sits on Davids’ throne in heaven, Amen.

I only wanted to point this out for all to be careful. This clarifies the need for an infallible teacher to interpret Sacred Scripture;

Unam, Sanctum, Cathlicam, Apostolicam Eccleatica

 

[Joel_Tunnah]

…it is clearly a contradiction.

No, it is not. You are wrong whatistruth.

“shall not lack” and “shall not want” are saying the exact same thing. You need to read more 17th century prose.

Joel

 

[thistle]

I am not sure what you are trying to say? it is clearly a contradiction. David clearly wanted another man to sit on his throne and that would be his son Solomon who is the forerunner of the True Son,i.e. Jesus Christ, lord of Lords and king of Kings who sits on Davids’ throne in heaven, Amen.

I only wanted to point this out for all to be careful. This clarifies the need for an infallible teacher to interpret Sacred Scripture;

Unam, Sanctum, Cathlicam, Apostolicam Eccleatica

I agree with Joel Tunnah. There is no contradiction. In this verse whether want or lack is used they both mean the same, i.e. lack.

 

[whatistruth]

ease up bretheren and thank you for correcting me. No need for arguing it will get us all nowhere. I really appreciate you pointing it out. Thank you.

 

[richardwy]

Furthermore, this particular non-denom was raised in something of an anti-Catholic environment (but is no longer an anti-Catholic), and so likely has been given many reasons to believe this claim. Given that neither of us is a Scripture scholar, what would be the best way to pursue this debate?

Peace,
Dante

Maybe it comes with age, but at 50, I dislike debating. It’s like someone has their “schtick” in reserve and looks for a likely volunteer or victim. Then the show is on.

Maybe I’m just a lousy apologist.

Those who query honestly, it’s another matter entirely.

Pray for me as I’m developing a friendship with a fellow who is open to God, but a bit muddled by the many voices that say “shop here!”