KJV is the most authentic and closest interpretation

[greggy53]

Thank you, Holly!!!

As for our KJV-worshipping “friend”:
Yean, I have my great-grandmother’s Bible.
That dear lady never went to school a day in her life, but she loved the Lord dearly, & she spent all she had, before she & my great-grandfather sailed over from Holland to come to America, to buy herself a Bible…With his help, she taught herself to read in the only language she knew: Dutch, & all she ever read was that Bible.
That Bible was as perfect a Bible as was ever printed. I know, because my great-grandmother was as great a saint of God as ever walked this earth. I would trade all the KJV’s on the planet for that one dear volume, tattered though it may be. It is over 130 years old, & hallowed with the touch of her hands.
Quit studying your bluidy conspiracy theories, laddie. They’re all so much dust & sand on the winds.

I hope you still have the Bible?..I have my great grandfather’s family bible (KJV) and it is my most treasured family heirloom. …Of course being Catholic I use a Catholic Bible., but I love the Kings English.

 

[greggy53]

I have a couple of things to say.
First, I do not believe the historical evidence shows an open canon for the Jews until 100AD. I am also going to go out on a limb, and there might be exceptions, and say I have read more than just about anyone on this forum on that particular topic.
This belief is based upon assumptions. What it lacks is any form of primary source evidence. You can think I am full of it and go and research it. Let me give an example that may help people.Did you know that research scholars almost without exception hold that the Gospels were first passed on without names attached to them? Did you know that the primary source evidence for this is nada? In other words, there are no existing early copies of the Gospels without names on them. There are no early patristic writers who say that either. Yet, the vast majority of scholars accept this as fact. It is one of the reasons they attach much later dates to the composition of the Gospels themselves.

If this is as you say and there is absolutely no evidence then how do the “vast majority of scholars” know that the Gospels were passed on with out names?? If there is no evidence for it how can they assume it was so?..There has to be some evidence for the hypothesis otherwise it’s conjecture.

So lets turn back to this belief about an open canon among the Jews in 100 AD. There is in my estimation no real evidence of this. Its a belief.
Second, and final point. If people believe that all older copies of the “Bible” (understanding they did not contain the full set of books by anyone’s canon) have vast differences. Based upon these differences translations today look very different. Maybe you know this and do not care. However, in the fundamentalist community there exists a desire to know what the original copies said and what they looked like. Our scholars hold radically different presuppostions than many of the people who make the modern editions. As such, it is a contentious issue. Because the vast majority of fundamentalist might not be able to articulate the problems and issues does not negate that they exist.

We know and we care. The Holy scriptures as we know them today were declared sacred scripture at the council of Rome in 382 AD. All of the books contained and declared sacred scripture by that council are still in every Catholic Bible today. The councils declarations are well documented historical fact.
Your “scholars” hold radically different presuppositions concerning the origins and the history of the scriptures and the Christian Church because they need to do so in order to justify their existence as Protestants. They have diligently sought ways to circumvent the fact the Bible is Catholic in origin, and the fact that the history of Christianity is Catholic right back to the 1st century. . Questioning the historical authenticity of Catholic documents is the only way they can cast doubt and justify their rebellion. . They cannot provide any documents or evidence of the their own to indicate that Christianity was ever anything different from what Mother Chruch has always maintained.

 

[Rightlydivide]

=greggy53;6505938]If this is as you say and there is absolutely no evidence then how do the “vast majority of scholars” know that the Gospels were passed on with out names?? If there is no evidence for it how can they assume it was so?..There has to be some evidence for the hypothesis otherwise it’s conjecture.

That is precisely my point. It is conjecture. What often passes for fact is based upon faulty presuppositions and that was my point.

We know and we care. The Holy scriptures as we know them today were declared sacred scripture at the council of Rome in 382 AD. All of the books contained and declared sacred scripture by that council are still in every Catholic Bible today. The councils declarations are well documented historical fact.
Your “scholars” hold radically different presuppositions concerning the origins and the history of the scriptures and the Christian Church because they need to do so in order to justify their existence as Protestants. They have diligently sought ways to circumvent the fact the Bible is Catholic in origin, and the fact that the history of Christianity is Catholic right back to the 1st century. . Questioning the historical authenticity of Catholic documents is the only way they can cast doubt and justify their rebellion. . They cannot provide any documents or evidence of the their own to indicate that Christianity was ever anything different from what Mother Chruch has always maintained.

Well the Council of Rome is not considered historically reliable because of the quote from Augustine. But it also is worth mentioning the numerous other councils after them are not controversial; specifically Carthage and Hippo. You could, I would if I were Catholic, appeal to those to make roughly the same point.
As far as the rest of your post, my primary focus is on textual variants and not matters of the canon. From that perspective, I am not sure that conservative Catholics and conservative Protestants differ in this regard. There was a period of time when Catholics and Protestants argued with one another against those who attacked or sought to remove portions of scripture. I cannot be sure that is different now. I have not looked too much into conservative Catholicism and issues of Catholic translations to comment on it.
The rest of your post reflects a desire to shift the discussion to the nature of the early church in terms of doctrine and practice. That was not the focus of this thread. As such, you could jump into any of the other threads I posted on to discuss those matters. It should be noted, we do not have to justify anything to Catholics or any other group. However, that tone detracts from the nature of what could be a valuable conversation. Although, unless you are versed in textual variances and the history of translations, I am not quite sure it would be your cup of tea. I could of course be wrong about that.

 

[greggy53]

That is precisely my point. It is conjecture. What often passes for fact is based upon faulty presuppositions and that was my point. .

Well then are trying to say that the there is no evidence of what the early Church taught and believed? The Gospels were in the hands of the early Church and there is ample evidence for it. There were epistles and Gospels that never made it into the Bible and there is reliable evidence for that too. We have Polycarp , St Ignatius, Justin Martyr, St Clement of Rome just to name a few. All of whom left their writings for us. There was no conjecture on matters of importance to the early Church I can assure you. We have the legitimate documents of the early Church fathers to prove it. All the conjecture and doubt that you speak of was fostered by the authors of the so-called reformation 1500 years later in order to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the one true Church.

Well the Council of Rome is not considered historically reliable because of the quote from Augustine. But it also is worth mentioning the numerous other councils after them are not controversial; specifically Carthage and Hippo. You could, I would if I were Catholic, appeal to those to make roughly the same point. .

Not considered historically reliable by whom?..Calvin, Luther?. Again, theses false claims are only attempts to discredit the Church.

As far as the rest of your post, my primary focus is on textual variants and not matters of the canon. From that perspective, I am not sure that conservative Catholics and conservative Protestants differ in this regard. There was a period of time when Catholics and Protestants argued with one another against those who attacked or sought to remove portions of scripture. I cannot be sure that is different now. I have not looked too much into conservative Catholicism and issues of Catholic translations to comment on it. .

Textual variants and not matters of cannon?. Sounds like double talk to me.

The rest of your post reflects a desire to shift the discussion to the nature of the early church in terms of doctrine and practice. That was not the focus of this thread. As such, you could jump into any of the other threads I posted on to discuss those matters. It should be noted, we do not have to justify anything to Catholics or any other group. However, that tone detracts from the nature of what could be a valuable conversation. Although, unless you are versed in textual variances and the history of translations, I am not quite sure it would be your cup of tea. I could of course be wrong about that.

Well you made several statements concerning the early Church and the cannon. You claim that our knowledge of the early cannon is based on assumption and conjecture. I disagreed giving my reasons. If I went off topic it’s because you opened that door. I’m sorry you don’t like my tone. I don’t appreciate your condescending attitude either, but I’m not going to whine about it. I am a layman not a theologan, but I am versed well enough in my faith and it’s history to know when someone is is throwing mud at it.

 

[Rightlydivide]

greggy53;6506985]Well then are trying to say that the there is no evidence of what the early Church taught and believed? The Gospels were in the hands of the early Church and there is ample evidence for it. There were epistles and Gospels that never made it into the Bible and there is reliable evidence for that too. We have Polycarp , St Ignatius, Justin Martyr, St Clement of Rome just to name a few. All of whom left their writings for us. There was no conjecture on matters of importance to the early Church I can assure you. We have the legitimate documents of the early Church fathers to prove it. All the conjecture and doubt that you speak of was fostered by the authors of the so-called reformation 1500 years later in order to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the one true Church.

Let me try this again. I was speaking about JRKH statement that the canon of the Jews was open until 100 AD because the vast majority of scholarship says that it was. I stated
the following

What it lacks is any form of primary source evidence

In other words, even though it is a common belief among scholars, it lacks historical support. I then gave the example of the Gospels to show an example people might be more familiar.
Apparently, and I do not know why, you somehow thought I was arguing this point because I believed in it. I will stop with analogies then. Even when I clarified in my next post, that still did not seem to get through.

Not considered historically reliable by whom?..Calvin, Luther?. Again, theses false claims are only attempts to discredit the Church.

False claims that the Council of Rome in 382 lacks historical support?
Here is one link.
tertullian.org/articles/burkitt_gelasianum.htm
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decretum_Gelasianum ( I know everyone does not love Wikipedia but it contains links)

There can, I think, be little doubt that v. Dobschütz has made out his case. The really decisive point is that in I 3, in the part most directly associated with Damasus, there is a quotation of some length from Augustine in Joh. ix 7 (Migne, xxxv 146l).1 As Augustine was writing about 416, it is evident that the Title Incipit Concilium Vrbis Romae sub Damaso Papa de Explanatione Fidei is of no historical value.

Textual variants and not matters of cannon?. Sounds like double talk to me.

How so? Textual variants and the “canon” are two entirely different discussions. Textual variants obviously can be included in books that have the very same canon. All Bibles that are different (ie different translations) include textual variants.

Well you made several statements concerning the early Church and the cannon. You claim that our knowledge of the early cannon is based on assumption and conjecture. I disagreed giving my reasons. If I went off topic it’s because you opened that door. I’m sorry you don’t like my tone. I don’t appreciate your condescending attitude either, but I’m not going to whine about it. I am a layman not a theologan, but I am versed well enough in my faith and it’s history to know when someone is is throwing mud at it.

Yes, I made a statement regarding whether the Jewish canon was closed in 100 AD. I do not believe the historical evidence supports it being open that late. If my attitute is condescending, it is because you

1. Did not grasp my analogy.
2. Did not address my points that I did make
3. Switched the tone to one that believe that any group has to “justify” itself to your church. Any group can use that tactic. Which is what it is. A diversion.
4. I am not throwing any mud. I believe many conservative Catholics have the same concerns about textual variants with theological agendas.
5. And finally. You cannot spell canon. You keep referring to a large weapon that goes boom.
   So IF I am less than civil, I do not think you are well versed at all. Maybe you are and this conversation will shift. I am not optimistic because you changed the focus to bring out the same old talking points. And I was absolutely not throwing anything at the Catholic Church. I would suppose they would take this issue serious as well. They used to like I said in the late 1800’s I know. I was attempting to have a serious conversation about something that I do not think you know anything about. I mean seriously…I am not even sure you know what a textual variant is. But maybe you will google it…and we can move on.

 

[Rightlydivide]

A link to possibly facilitate the discussion away from where some people are attempting to take it.
dtl.org/alt/main/variants.htm

Any conversation about what translation is the most authentic and so forth (the intent of the OP) must include a serious look at textual variants.

Edit:
I think before anyone says I attacked the Catholic Church, its just like crying racism or sexism in my view, look at how people who love and use the majority text, specifically the KJV have been portrayed in this thread.
Essentially, Catholics think we are morons. Quit nodding your heads in agreement! This is when you say of course not Rightly. We accept your cognitive abilities as at least average…
When I have attempted to change the discourse to substantive matters concerning textual variants, I get this.
Frustrating really. You know a Protestant who supports the KJV and a Catholic who supports the DR probably have more in common than many suspect…Food for thought anyway!

 

[greggy53]

A link to possibly facilitate the discussion away from where some people are attempting to take it.
dtl.org/alt/main/variants.htm

Any conversation about what translation is the most authentic and so forth (the intent of the OP) must include a serious look at textual variants.

Edit:
I think before anyone says I attacked the Catholic Church, its just like crying racism or sexism in my view, look at how people who love and use the majority text, specifically the KJV have been portrayed in this thread.
Essentially, Catholics think we are morons. Quit nodding your heads in agreement! This is when you say of course not Rightly. We accept your cognitive abilities as at least average…
When I have attempted to change the discourse to substantive matters concerning textual variants, I get this.
Frustrating really. You know a Protestant who supports the KJV and a Catholic who supports the DR probably have more in common than many suspect…Food for thought anyway!

Well we do have Jesus Christ crucified in common. I have always said that after the arguing is done Protestant and Catholic should be able to stand together under that banner. My wife attended a fundamentalist Church for 5 years or so, and I had many an interesting conversation with them. I did not find any morons among them, but the misinformation, and their sheer ignorance of the Catholic faith and Christian history in general never ceased to amaze me. On the whole I will say that they were less educated than many Catholics, but in my experience education is not necessarily a good measure of intelligence. I do realize that the thrust of your discourse pertained to the differences and origins of the JKV vs the Catholic translations, but the implications reach far beyond just “textual variances”. My point in the matter is that in order for any Church of the reformation to legitimize it’s existence it becomes necessary for them at some point to “attack” the Catholic Church. Either through ignorance and misinformation or in your case to muddy the waters with “textual variances”

 

[Rightlydivide]

Well we do have Jesus Christ crucified in common. I have always said that after the arguing is done Protestant and Catholic should be able to stand together under that banner. My wife attended a fundamentalist Church for 5 years or so, and I had many an interesting conversation with them. I did not find any morons among them, but the misinformation, and their sheer ignorance of the Catholic faith and Christian history in general never ceased to amaze me. On the whole I will say that they were less educated than many Catholics, but in my experience education is not necessarily a good measure of intelligence. I do realize that the thrust of your discourse pertained to the differences and origins of the JKV vs the Catholic translations, but the implications reach far beyond just “textual variances”. My point in the matter is that in order for any Church of the reformation to legitimize it’s existence it becomes necessary for them at some point to “attack” the Catholic Church. Either through ignorance and misinformation or in your case to muddy the waters with “textual variances”

The purpose of the thread is to talk about the KJV as a translation. Why would it be considered muddying the waters if it is the topic of the thread?

 

[greggy53]

The purpose of the thread is to talk about the KJV as a translation. Why would it be considered muddying the waters if it is the topic of the thread?

It is my opinion that when someone casts suspicions on the epistemology of the Catholic translations it may be viewed as an attempt to cast doubt on what the Church has always taught in order to legitimize a different translation. My point being that the Church has ample historical evidence and because someone chooses not to accept it that does not make it “conjecture”, or “assumption”. I probably would have been less inclined to suspect your motives if you had phrased those comments in a different manner.

 

[Rightlydivide]

It is my opinion that when someone casts suspicions on the epistemology of the Catholic translations it may be viewed as an attempt to cast doubt on what the Church has always taught in order to legitimize a different translation. My point being that the Church has ample historical evidence and because someone chooses not to accept it that does not make it “conjecture”, or “assumption”. I probably would have been less inclined to suspect your motives if you had phrased those comments in a different manner.

I am not sure that your church has an official stance on the closing of the Hebrew canon in 100 AD. Are you under the impression they do? The closing of the Hebrew canon would not be directly related to your churches canon anyway unless they choose to make that a determining factor.
Anyway…to the topic at hand.
I did not directly mention Catholic translations. I had not even really thought about them! That may be because anyone I have ever discussed the merit of specific translations has been Protestant.
Translations abound even in Catholicism I thought. My understanding is that Catholics use several different translations. If that is not the case, I readily admit that I know Catholic translations largely in name only.
Most of my interest in the topic specifically relates to Protestant versions and so forth. Like I said, I am not sure that in many cases an older Catholic translation and the KJV would have many similiarities and we would share more than we disagree in terms of this topic.

 

[Zooey]

I hope you still have the Bible?..I have my great grandfather’s family bible (KJV) and it is my most treasured family heirloom. …Of course being Catholic I use a Catholic Bible., but I love the Kings English.

Yes, I do!! I take it down from time to time, and “read” a bit. (I am all but illiterate in Dutch, but if I read a portion out loud, I hear myslef picking up the cadences of her speech, & begin to understand it a little…I like to think, that this was how she felt, as a young woman, when she first began to learn to read.
My grandmother covered it with heavy wine velvet when the cover began to fall apart. It has faded to rose, but the stitches still hold. It is treasured indeed.

 

[Dylpickleh8]

The King James Bible was used and the only English version for almost 400 years

Wrong, there were several English translations before the KJV.
The Tyndale, The Geneva, and the Douay-Rheims are some that come to mind.
All of those including the * The Great Bible: the first “authorized version”*, were translated before the KJV.

 

[Hesychios]

Frustrating really. You know a Protestant who supports the KJV and a Catholic who supports the DR probably have more in common than many suspect…Food for thought anyway!

Peas of a pod, so to say

 

[Hesychios]

“textual variances”

Textual variants are a serious concern.

There is no extant original text of a Bible anywhere. Today most translations are based upon harmonized texts as a basis. Just in reading the notes one can often see "some sources have … " because the variations are so profound that it sometimes would be wrong to not mention the alternative readings somewhere, at least in the margins.

 

[Zooey]

Wrong, there were several English translations before the KJV.
The Tyndale, The Geneva, and the Douay-Rheims are some that come to mind.
All of those including the The Great Bible: the first “authorized version”, were translated before the KJV.

This reminds me of something a cousin told me. She loves her KJV, and was delighted to receive a gift of a book that is the history of the King James Bible…only to discover that one of the big, BIG issues driving the Puritans/&Co out of England & over here to America…was the KJV.
No, they were NOT trying to preserve it. They used the Geneva Bible and they wanted to get as far as possible from what they considered a “modern, inaccurate, & theologically unsound” Bible that was being foisted on them by the government.True story.
And now their descendents are battling tooth & claw against “new, modern, inaccurate, & theologically unsound” Bibles…
Can anybody say “stuck in a humongous rut”??

 

[Hesychios]

This reminds me of something a cousin told me. She loves her KJV, and was delighted to receive a gift of a book that is the history of the King James Bible…only to discover that one of the big, BIG issues driving the Puritans/&Co out of England & over here to America…was the KJV.
No, they were NOT trying to preserve it. They used the Geneva Bible and they wanted to get as far as possible from what they considered a “modern, inaccurate, & theologically unsound” Bible that was being foisted on them by the government.True story.

Yep, true.

King James wanted to get the people away from the Geneva Bible and it’s marginal notes. It isn’t known as the “Authorized Version” for nothing.

This does not surprise me that this was a big issue with the Calvinist Puritans, who saw the tide turning against them in the Church of England.

 

[greggy53]

Yes, I do!! I take it down from time to time, and “read” a bit. (I am all but illiterate in Dutch, but if I read a portion out loud, I hear myslef picking up the cadences of her speech, & begin to understand it a little…I like to think, that this was how she felt, as a young woman, when she first began to learn to read.
My grandmother covered it with heavy wine velvet when the cover began to fall apart. It has faded to rose, but the stitches still hold. It is treasured indeed.

Great. Lucky for me my family Bible is in english. I scanned all the family pages, births deaths, marraiges etc and the marriage certificate page. If there is anyhting like that in yours or writing on pages or covers you many want to think about scanning them. Keep it in a safe place out of direct sunlight too.

 

[Izdaari]

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.

Good point, but not all IFBs are so black and white in their thinking. I post on a Baptist board that’s mostly IFB, and some of them are theologically sophisticated and capable of nuanced argument. (I’m not even a Baptist, and only technically a fundamentalist, but I’ve made some good friends there.)

 

[Izdaari]

Well we do have Jesus Christ crucified in common. I have always said that after the arguing is done Protestant and Catholic should be able to stand together under that banner. My wife attended a fundamentalist Church for 5 years or so, and I had many an interesting conversation with them. I did not find any morons among them, but the misinformation, and their sheer ignorance of the Catholic faith and Christian history in general never ceased to amaze me. On the whole I will say that they were less educated than many Catholics, but in my experience education is not necessarily a good measure of intelligence. I do realize that the thrust of your discourse pertained to the differences and origins of the JKV vs the Catholic translations, but the implications reach far beyond just “textual variances”. **My point in the matter is that in order for any Church of the reformation to legitimize it’s existence it becomes necessary for them at some point to “attack” the Catholic Church. ** Either through ignorance and misinformation or in your case to muddy the waters with “textual variances”

Really? I’ve never heard any attacks on the Catholic Church at my church (Assemblies of God). We have some former Catholics who are glad they left, but their criticism is at least with the benefit of first-hand knowledge. Unless I talk to one of those people, the subject never comes up.

 

[Izdaari]

And now, responding to the original topic:

I don’t believe the KJV is anything so very special. I have a couple of them, among the many, many translations I own, including some Catholic translations and some others with the 73 book canon. My favorite for general use is the ESV with the HCSB a very close second, but on a given Sunday, I might carry any of them to church… yes, even the Catholic translations, and no one will say a word. I’ve taken an NAB to Bible studies and nobody cared.