Z
Zooey
Guest
As I was saying, the more I see of “KJV Onlyism”,the less I use my KJV…
- Status
As I was saying, the more I see of “KJV Onlyism”,the less I use my KJV…
A
abcdefg
Guest
I have 2 versions of KJV in my PC one is 1850 version the other is 1769 version
I’m wondering why they always try to revise it.
I’m wondering why they always try to revise it.
R
romano
Guest
Despite its weaknesses, the KJV remains the most beautiful English translation ever made. Much of the KJV was filched from Wycliffe’s earlier translation (which reads much better than the KJV reworking in many places), and we should not forget that Wycliffe was strangled and then burned at the stake for his pains in bringing an English-language Bible to the common man. It’s also the case that the Deuterocanonical books were included (as Apocrypha) in the original KJV.
I remain puzzled as to how so many can dismiss with contempt a version which contains passages of such resounding force and beauty as 1 Corinthians 13: “Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, etc.”
We might also consider that when St Paul assured us that “now we see through a glass darkly” he was talking about all of us.
I remain puzzled as to how so many can dismiss with contempt a version which contains passages of such resounding force and beauty as 1 Corinthians 13: “Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, etc.”
We might also consider that when St Paul assured us that “now we see through a glass darkly” he was talking about all of us.
2
2Rollin_Stoned
Guest
http://pages.prodigy.net/rogerlori1...es.prodigy.net/indianahawkeye/newpage12/1.gif
Yeah sure! And so why then does it add a doxology to the Lord’s Prayer that isn’t in any of the original texts. In fact : the Doxology in question comes straight from the Didache. A non-canonical early church book.
Yet some KJV translator decided to add it. On whose authority? This by itself is enough to make an honest man toss it right out the window. Then of course is the fact that it has been editted and books removed. Oh yes…I’ve actually held a real 1611 KJV in my hands and read it…It had all the Deuterocanonical books in it too. If it was inerrant then then why was it altered?As for those who say that the KJV is a poetic masterpiece, I would refer you to the Douay-Rheims Version, especially Challoner since it uses that same era English, has all the books, and actually reads better. I have several and rarely use anything else. The other good thing is that you get a decent Catholic commentary in the deal.
drbo.org/
Z
Zooey
Guest
The language changed…This is also what has been done with other older versions, including the Douay.
The 1769 is the last approved revision that I am aware of…Is the 1850 a polyglot edition? I have my grandfather’s KJV, & it was done from a polyglot…It does have some minor differences.
Of course, now that
the 
KJV Onlies have taken over the world, we will soon be:bigyikes: afraid to change 
the page numbers…
F
flameburns623
Guest
While some advocates of the KJV are ‘stuck’ on the English text of the KJV itself, most are proponents of the Textus Receptus and/or are proponents of the use of traditional language. The T/R proponents point out that it is essentially the Textus Receptus which was the basis for the Douay-Rheims version, the Latin Vultage, the Tridentine Mass, the Byzantine Mass, and which was eesentially the Greek text used by all of the Patristic writers. Contemporary texts are based upon manuscripts of uncertain origin, which are only presumed to be more reliable because they are older than the traditional text. Most T/R proponents will in fact happily use the Douay-Rheims version, though it is a much poorer translation stylistically. Challoner improved the Douay somewhat but it remains inferior to the KJV in it’s literary merits, and heavily loaded in in it’s theological slant. Catholics of course see the KJV as the ‘biased’ translation, but we won’t skin that live cat here. Many T/R proponents are now using the New Millenium Bible (also known as KJV-21st Century Version or KJV-21), an updating of the KJV (which happens by the way to INCLUDE the deutero-canonical books of the OT!!!).The language changed…This is also what has been done with other older versions, including the Douay.
The 1769 is the last approved revision that I am aware of…Is the 1850 a polyglot edition? I have my grandfather’s KJV, & it was done from a polyglot…It does have some minor differences.
Of course, now that
Traditional language proponents support the KJV because it uses terms and language whose theological meanings have been largely hammered out. This is essentially the same argument many traditionalist Catholics use to argue for the Tridentine Mass–the Latin which forms the basis for it can often be referenced readily for what Catholic theologians and the Church itself have determined the text to mean. The English translation of the Tridentine Mass was much more literal and rooted in sound theological considerations than the contemporary-English translations of the Novus Ordo. The English translation of the Novus Ordo is rooted in a Latin text, but neither the Latin text nor the English translation are done with sufficient care to ensure that they do not lend aid and comfort to aberrant theology. Again-- traditionalist Episcopalians reject the 1979 Book because of the same concerns–some revert back to the 1928 BCP, some prefer even older versions, but in every case the concern is that how one prays shapes how one believes. One can ‘find’ an orthodox interpretation of the '79 BCP, but one can also lend to the text in many places a heterodox interptetation.
See Toon and Tarsitano for more discussion of this topic: “Neither Archaic Nor Obsolete: The Language of Common Prayer and Public Worship”; and “Neither Orthodoxy nor a Forumlary: The Shape and Content of the 1979 Prayer Book of the Episcopal Church”. The first of these two books has an especially interesting extended discussion of the history of English translations and the pitfalls and pecadillos of modern-language translations. Tarsitano also has an interesting appendix on the King James Version, and why it remains preferable to virtually all translations made since the English Revised Version of 1881, in his “Outline Of An Anglican Life”. Michael Davies made some similar points in two short books of his own, “The Tridentine Mass”; and “The New Mass”, neither of which may remain in print. As I recollect, Davies tends to be a bit sharp in his literary style and he equates anything ‘Anglican’ with heresy ipso facto; but it has been a decade or more since I read him so perhaps I am not being fair.
A
Axion
Guest
No. The KJV is based on Tyndale not Wycliffe. Nor was Wycliffe burned at the stake. He died a natural death. Tyndale WAS executed - but this was in the Netherlands for heresy. His execution had nothing to do with translating the bible into English.
An average score of 3 is not “dismissing with contempt”. However the KJV does have flaws, and made certain changes (removing “full of grace” etc) for doctrinal reasons. In addition much of its language comes from earlier versions including Tyndale, geneva and Douai.
K
Kevin_Walker
Guest
Not as good as the Douay-Rheims! 
Z
Zooey
Guest
1.The Douay was one of the Bibles used in translating the KJV. There were others: Bishops’, Geneva, Great(it was
big-honest!)2. Wrong King James. King James 2 was Catholic. King James 1 wasn’t much of anything…He was raised by Scots Presbyterians.His mother was Mary, Queen of Scots, who was Catholic; he might have been baptized Catholic, but he was raised away from her.
3. It wasn’t the fundamentalists, it was the Puritans. The books were taken out for Bibles shipped to the Colonies (us) to get the money England was losing when colonists bought Swiss Bibles(as Geneva…). They wanted Bibles w/o deuterocanonical books. English printers obliged, but England still required Bibles sold at home to be w/deuterocanon…(Whether in the order of Catholic, or in a separate section as Apocrypha,I don’t really know.)
M
MarkAnthonyCozy
Guest
Thanks for responding to my previous post.The language changed…This is also what has been done with other older versions, including the Douay.
The 1769 is the last approved revision that I am aware of…Is the 1850 a polyglot edition? I have my grandfather’s KJV, & it was done from a polyglot…It does have some minor differences.
Of course, now that
There are many underground KJV’s being printed by individual fundamentalist churches and distributed at their cost to print. I’ve pick up two recently and have found typos in both!
So much for the innerrant word of God; an innerrancy based on their view of:
- the Masoretic Text as the infallable Jewish bible
- the Septuigint as demonic
- the Textus Receptus as the preserved Word of God
- the KJV as the preserved Word of God in the English language based on Psalm 12:6 and their belief that the KJV was the 7th in the official line of text revisions in English hence the phrase “purified seven times”
J
jako
Guest
The original KJV was published in 1611 AD. It had ALL the books of the Bible then in 1885 the Apocrypha was removed???
I always found it hard to believe how the KJV could be, “the only inerrant word of God.” It has gone through numerouse revisions, so which revision is THE one? And since the men who wrote the Bible read, wrote and spoke, Hebrew and Aramaic for the Old Testament, and Greek for the New Testament, how an english Bible could be the “only inerrant word of God.” Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek do not translate literally into English.
James
I always found it hard to believe how the KJV could be, “the only inerrant word of God.” It has gone through numerouse revisions, so which revision is THE one? And since the men who wrote the Bible read, wrote and spoke, Hebrew and Aramaic for the Old Testament, and Greek for the New Testament, how an english Bible could be the “only inerrant word of God.” Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek do not translate literally into English.
James
- Status