KJV is the most authentic and closest interpretation

[descout]

I am curious how the KJV can be the most authentic version of the Bible. This Bible was interpreted on the German version and at the time did not even have the “original” manuscripts to reference. On the other hand the “Real” Douay Rheims was a translation, not interpretation, of the Latin Vulgate. The Latin Vulgate being translated directly from some of the original Hebrew and Greek text shortly, in contrast to the KJV, after Christ’s death. To me it would seem to me that the Latin Vulgate followed by the Real Douay Rheims would be more authentic than the KJV.

 

[I_Fortuna]

I believe you are correct and have you inspected the Jerusalem Bible or the New American Version (Catholic). Each bible printing house has their own agenda and the bible is revised according to councils that discover new information regarding translation and history. It is really fun to compare scripture between the different bibles. Also, KJV does not appear to have the Apocrypha. So I prefer those bibles that do so I can have the whole picture. I suggest the Jeff Cavins DVD series in order to get an idea which bible is right for you. He also explains from the beginning the :thumbsup:common threads that run through the bible. He is a good speaker who makes the bible alive and interesting.

 

[AnAtheist]

Oh, Jack The Chick has some funny conspiracy theories about why the KJV is the one and only real version of the bible.

The funniest is that because we now live in the end-times and English is nowadays the world’s lingua franca, therefore God preserved his word in English. Boy, that’s perfectly logical.

 

[Hesychios]

I am curious how the KJV can be the most authentic version of the Bible …

It seems like a good question for the Sacred Scripture section of CAF.

 

[dgdough]

Oh, Jack The Chick has some funny conspiracy theories about why the KJV is the one and only real version of the bible.

The funniest is that because we now live in the end-times and English is nowadays the world’s lingua franca, therefore God preserved his word in English. Boy, that’s perfectly logical.

As “AnAtheist” I’m assuming you don’t believe any of the Bibles so how is your opinion relevant?

Here is something to think about (not you specifically but could apply). God said His word would be preserved. Here is just one example of many:

Psalms 19:7, “The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple.”

Now, if the newer Bibles of today had used the same method of translating instead of copyrighting their Books and removing verses on the blood and deity of Christ then maybe there would be no issues and we could live happily ever after. But, have you noticed that many of these newer Bibles contradict themselves and one (Living Bible) just paraphrases the word of God? How ridiculous is it to think that God wanted his word paraphrased? It’s common sense to think God wanted His word preserved in a way that got the real message across. The King James Bible was used and the only English version for almost 400 years…are you saying God is a liar and did not preserve His word for those multitudes of Generations? He didn’t preserve His word for all those years until the Catholic Church magically found these “older” documents from which to translate from? NO! He said He preserved His word and that means these new documents are from the Devil, to make us stray from God’s true teachings. If they were something God wanted in His word, they would have been in the manuscripts and have been translated through the years. This is not the case.

I dare anyone to find a contradiction or mistake in the King James Bible, you can’t do it. While I can find many MISSING, yes MISSING verses in the new Bibles and contradictions to the deity of Christ. It’s despicable and I hope and pray you take the chance and research, study ask God for guidance. I’m only a man, I can make mistakes but I’ve searched my heart and I’ve asked God to give me wisdom in the manner and He has. I would ask that you consider doing the same.

 

[JRKH]

As “AnAtheist” I’m assuming you don’t believe any of the Bibles so how is your opinion relevant?

This person, I’m sure is able to read and so their opinion on “translations” is jsut as relevant as anyone elses. The Bible is not only “Holy Scripture” it is also “Historical” as well as “Liturature”.
Additionally, if this person is not permitted to comment on scripture, just how do you expect to “convert” him/her.

Methinks your attitude toward this person as regards the Bible tells us a bit more about you than about him.

(Snip)

I dare anyone to find a contradiction or mistake in the King James Bible, you can’t do it. While I can find many MISSING, yes MISSING verses in the new Bibles and contradictions to the deity of Christ. It’s despicable and I hope and pray you take the chance and research, study ask God for guidance. I’m only a man, I can make mistakes but I’ve searched my heart and I’ve asked God to give me wisdom in the manner and He has. I would ask that you consider doing the same.

How about this for things “MISSING”…from the KJV:
The books of:

Baruch
Judith
1 Machabees
2 Machabees
Sirach
Tobit
Wisdom
Plus sections missing from Daniel
(and from one other book whos’ name escapes me right now.)

​

This is not an invitation to argue the validity of the Bible canons since that is not the subject of this thread. It is, however, and invitation to you to check into which canon is the more ancient (66 books or 73 books) and so which contains the “fullness” of the Holy Scriptures.

Peace
James

 

[NEWCATHOLICJEFF]

As “AnAtheist” I’m assuming you don’t believe any of the Bibles so how is your opinion relevant?

Here is something to think about (not you specifically but could apply). God said His word would be preserved. Here is just one example of many:

Psalms 19:7, “The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple.”

Now, if the newer Bibles of today had used the same method of translating instead of copyrighting their Books and removing verses on the blood and deity of Christ then maybe there would be no issues and we could live happily ever after. But, have you noticed that many of these newer Bibles contradict themselves and one (Living Bible) just paraphrases the word of God? How ridiculous is it to think that God wanted his word paraphrased? It’s common sense to think God wanted His word preserved in a way that got the real message across. The King James Bible was used and the only English version for almost 400 years…are you saying God is a liar and did not preserve His word for those multitudes of Generations? He didn’t preserve His word for all those years until the Catholic Church magically found these “older” documents from which to translate from? NO! He said He preserved His word and that means these new documents are from the Devil, to make us stray from God’s true teachings. If they were something God wanted in His word, they would have been in the manuscripts and have been translated through the years. This is not the case.

I dare anyone to find a contradiction or mistake in the King James Bible, you can’t do it. While I can find many MISSING, yes MISSING verses in the new Bibles and contradictions to the deity of Christ. It’s despicable and I hope and pray you take the chance and research, study ask God for guidance. I’m only a man, I can make mistakes but I’ve searched my heart and I’ve asked God to give me wisdom in the manner and He has. I would ask that you consider doing the same.

Like you when I need a Xerox for a meeting I prefer to use a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy…instead of just a copy of a copy…not sure why, I guess the fuzziness of the copy makes me feel all fuzzy too…and the image is just a clear and perfect as the original…

 

[dgdough]

This person, I’m sure is able to read and so their opinion on “translations” is jsut as relevant as anyone elses. The Bible is not only “Holy Scripture” it is also “Historical” as well as “Liturature”.
Additionally, if this person is not permitted to comment on scripture, just how do you expect to “convert” him/her.

Methinks your attitude toward this person as regards the Bible tells us a bit more about you than about him.

How about this for things “MISSING”…from the KJV:
The books of:

Baruch
Judith
1 Machabees
2 Machabees
Sirach
Tobit
Wisdom
Plus sections missing from Daniel
(and from one other book whos’ name escapes me right now.)

​

This is not an invitation to argue the validity of the Bible canons since that is not the subject of this thread. It is, however, and invitation to you to check into which canon is the more ancient (66 books or 73 books) and so which contains the “fullness” of the Holy Scriptures.

Peace
James

Don’t take my word for it brother, get into the Gospel and you’ll learn. You can’t convert everyone and here is my stance from the Bible on people like AnAtheist.

Titus 3:10-11 (King James Version)

10A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject;

11Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself.

Those books you mentioned are not from God, sorry you believe they are. I take my stance, love and wisdom from the Holy Bible where as you must take it from Catholic doctrine and tradition.

I’ll pray for AnAtheist but I do reject him because he is a heretic.

 

[Rightlydivide]

I am curious how the KJV can be the most authentic version of the Bible. This Bible was interpreted on the German version and at the time did not even have the “original” manuscripts to reference. On the other hand the “Real” Douay Rheims was a translation, not interpretation, of the Latin Vulgate. The Latin Vulgate being translated directly from some of the original Hebrew and Greek text shortly, in contrast to the KJV, after Christ’s death. To me it would seem to me that the Latin Vulgate followed by the Real Douay Rheims would be more authentic than the KJV.

When you say the KJV translators did not have the “original manuscripts to reference” what do you mean?
What does interpreting from the German version mean as well based upon your understanding?

 

[Hesychios]

When you say the KJV translators did not have the “original manuscripts to reference” what do you mean?
What does interpreting from the German version mean as well based upon your understanding?

There are no extant originals anywhere.

Everyone, including Blessed Saint Jerome (d. early fifth century), used Greek copies of copies of copies of copies. Then Jerome’s Vulgate became Latin copies of copies of copies of copies too …

I think the KJV depended in part on some LXX manuscripts which were acquired from Orthodox church monasteries. They would have been very old but there is just no telling how correct they were since everything was copied by hand for many centuries. They may have been more accurate than the best Latin manuscripts of the day, or perhaps not

One of the most popular Catholic Bibles, the RSV Catholic (aka Ignatius Bible), is actually derived from KJV antecedents.

 

[greggy53]

Don’t take my word for it brother, get into the Gospel and you’ll learn. You can’t convert everyone and here is my stance from the Bible on people like AnAtheist

Those books you mentioned are not from God, sorry you believe they are. I take my stance, love and wisdom from the Holy Bible where as you must take it from Catholic doctrine and tradition.

I’ll pray for AnAtheist but I do reject him because he is a heretic.

Well those books that you claim are not from God have been included in the Bible since the Catholic Church first declared which books were sacred scripture way back in 387 AD…They were also included in your KJV until late in the 19th century. Also, I wouldn’t refer to an atheist as a heretic. Unbeliever would be more accurate.

 

[Rightlydivide]

There are no extant originals anywhere.

Everyone, including Blessed Saint Jerome (d. early fifth century), used Greek copies of copies of copies of copies. Then Jerome’s Vulgate became Latin copies of copies of copies of copies too …

I think the KJV depended in part on some LXX manuscripts which were acquired from Orthodox church monasteries. They would have been very old but there is just no telling how correct they were since everything was copied by hand for many centuries. They may have been more accurate than the best Latin manuscripts of the day, or perhaps not

One of the most popular Catholic Bibles, the RSV Catholic (aka Ignatius Bible), is actually derived from KJV antecedents.

Well yes, that is why I was seeking clarification. As far as the particular textual streams that made up the translations prior to the KJV and then the sources of the KJV, the primary sources are what are termed the Byzantine or Majority text of which Orthodox Bibles also use albeit with some exceptions.

 

[john_charles]

Does anyone know WHY and WHO removed those books from the KJV 1611 ?
If God preserved his word in the KJV 1611 English version then why did someone change it ? I have heard the “ENGLISH” arguement many times and it seems extremely narrow minded. It makes me wonder about all the non speaking christians who God must not have wanted to give His word to.

 

[Rightlydivide]

John
The Deuterocanonical/Apocrypha were removed to save money and printing costs in the 1800’s. It is important, and you may already know this, that the KJV has them in a seperate section unlike a Catholic or Orthodox bible. It is also important to understand that KJV with the disputed books are still available. In fact, I think we have seen an upswing in their use. That is only anecdotal. I based that upon my impressions from other forums.

 

[JRKH]

Don’t take my word for it brother, get into the Gospel and you’ll learn. You can’t convert everyone and here is my stance from the Bible on people like AnAtheist.

Titus 3:10-11 (King James Version)

10A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject;

11Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself.

I’ll pray for AnAtheist but I do reject him because he is a heretic.

Do you know for sure that he is a heretic? A heretic is one who holds an obstinate post baptismal rejection of a belief that must be held with full and catholic faith. - Or words to that effect. Do you know whether this person was ever baptized?

Those books you mentioned are not from God, sorry you believe they are. I take my stance, love and wisdom from the Holy Bible where as you must take it from Catholic doctrine and tradition.

Lets see,
You said -
I dare anyone to find a contradiction or mistake in the King James Bible, you can’t do it. While I can find many MISSING, yes MISSING verses in the new Bibles and contradictions to the deity of Christ. It’s despicable and I hope and pray you take the chance and research, study ask God for guidance. I’m only a man, I can make mistakes but I’ve searched my heart and I’ve asked God to give me wisdom in the manner and He has. I would ask that you consider doing the same.

Well I not only CAN – But I did.

Every Bible used by the Western Church prior to the Reformation contained the books I mentioned above. So - Unless it is your contention that God permitted ALL Christians, members of His unified Catholic Church, living in Europe to use a “defective” Bible for 1000 years before “correcting” it - then the facts remain unchanged. The KJV is mistaken. It is MISSING (your caps.) entire books plus portions of other books.

Of course it is easy to maintain your position when you can simply choose to deny the evidence clearly presented to you.

I’m glad that you take Love and wisdom from the Holy Bible. I just wish you would take a little time to discover how you came to have the bible you hold in your hand.

Peace
James

 

[AnAtheist]

As “AnAtheist” I’m assuming you don’t believe any of the Bibles so how is your opinion relevant?

Perhaps I have a neutral view on the compilation of the bible, that is not distorted by faith or membership to a specific denomination.

The King James Bible was used and the only English version for almost 400 years…are you saying God is a liar …] ?

No, I am saying that Jack T. Chick and people alike spreading conspiracy theories about who changed the bible and why are liars.

I dare anyone to find a contradiction or mistake in the King James Bible, you can’t do it.

Shall I really bother?

 

[AnAtheist]

Do you know for sure that he is a heretic? A heretic is one who holds an obstinate post baptismal rejection of a belief that must be held with full and catholic faith.

Do you think an “Independent Fundamental Baptist” would bother with differences in the meaning of heretic, schismatic, apostate, and unbelievers? In a simple world of black and white differences on the other side don’t count.

 

[JRKH]

Do you think an “Independent Fundamental Baptist” would bother with differences in the meaning of heretic, schismatic, apostate, and unbelievers? In a simple world of black and white differences on the other side don’t count.

I guess you are right on this.

Peace
James

 

[blazerdave]

The KJV was the Bible of my parents and grandparents, and there are certain portions (like St. John 1, Isaiah’s Suffering Servant, some of the Psalms) that are absolutely stunning to read aloud. My parish uses Rite 1 in the Book of Common Prayer, so such language is familiar to me. Sometimes we still read from the KJV on special occasions. But I guess I always thought of it as the “English” Bible and the “Colonial/Early America” Bible. So imagine my surprise when I recently discovered that this entire online war is raging over the KJV and its supposedly divinely-preserved superiority over the so-called “New Age” or “Corrupted” Bibles. Absolutely ridiculous charges are being leveled there. I love the language of that Bible, but a thing can have elegance and influence while not being the “most authentic and closest interpretation” (to quote the title of the thread). One should keep several respected translations on hand, because scholarship and the availability of texts have come a long way since 1611.

 

[Rightlydivide]

blazerdave
There is indeed a lot of conversation about the KJV online. While not everyone is versed in the controversy, make no mistake that the texts used by the modern editions are based upon a few older manuscripts. However, do spend some time looking at these three individual manuscripts. I have spent considerable time finding out that in the thousands of places they disagree, that theological bias and presuppositions enter into phrasing and word choice in the translation. Jack Chick oversimplifies and distorts facts but there is a real choice to be made by people in determining the proper and best text in God’s word. You can disagree with the views of those who adhere to the majority text but make sure it is based upon accurate knowledge. Truth in this case, is hard to come by without knowing the facts.