The Immaculate Conception of the King James Bible

  • Thread starter Thread starter adamhovey1988
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

adamhovey1988

Guest
Pardon the title, it’s a bit tongue-in-cheek. I have honestly seen claims that only the KJV Bible is the only trustworthy Bible translation, because, according to many (though not all) of those defending it, that it was translated by good and holy men. What I don’t understand is that, if this is the case, (I don’t have enough information one way or the other), why do many of these KJV onlyists have such issue with concept of Mary being conceived without sin? Clearly, it seems to me that if God preserved those translators from error (which I do not believe they did). By the way, as an aside, I’ve noticed that many of those that support KJV onlyism, do so on the claim that it is the “authorised version”. I do wonder if many of those that make that claim understand that it is “authorised” by the Church of England.
 
KJV-only is a interesting group of folks. They are extremely harsh critics of other bibles claiming a great deal of words have been omitted from other translations leading to doctrinal error.

I will say this, at least they are united in what bible they are reading from. Go to a mega church and the pastor tells you to read aloud scripture_____(insert one) and it sounds all distorted because everyone is reading different translations. And doctrine actually matters with them, unlike some denominations.

The apparent anti-Marian stuff from them is really just anti-Catholicism at work, imo. It’s their haste to quickly dismiss all things Catholic w/o proper investigation
 
Pardon the title, it’s a bit tongue-in-cheek. I have honestly seen claims that only the KJV Bible is the only trustworthy Bible translation, because, according to many (though not all) of those defending it, that it was translated by good and holy men. What I don’t understand is that, if this is the case, (I don’t have enough information one way or the other), why do many of these KJV onlyists have such issue with concept of Mary being conceived without sin? Clearly, it seems to me that if God preserved those translators from error (which I do not believe they did). By the way, as an aside, I’ve noticed that many of those that support KJV onlyism, do so on the claim that it is the “authorised version”. I do wonder if many of those that make that claim understand that it is “authorised” by the Church of England.
Too put the icing on the cake, most of those people despise the C of E for being "too Catholic.
 
And further, the King James was translated to favour the more “popish” or “romish” slant of the CoE, as opposed to the Puritan faction.That’s why the KJV has irritating (to Puritan ears) renderings like “bishoprick”.

I’ve actually said it before: I am of the opinion that if a Catholic authority would just do so, the King James can be easily granted a Nihil Obstat and published in a Catholic edition without changing a a single word.

Oh, and there is a Catholic version of KJV-onlyism. It’s called DR-onlyism. Two sides, same coin.
 
Too put the icing on the cake, most of those people despise the C of E for being "too Catholic.
The best guess is that the KJV was authorized by Orders in Council, not directly by the CoE. No formal authorization is known; the records of Orders in Council for the relevant period are not extant.
 
The Denver Biblical School students are advised not to choose a KJV Bible for study. It’s a translation of a translation, so deemed inaccurate.
 
The Denver Biblical School students are advised not to choose a KJV Bible for study. It’s a translation of a translation, so deemed inaccurate.
Oh, really?

From the title page: “The Holy Bible, Containing the Old Testament and the New, newly Translated out of the Original tongues & with the former Translation diligently compared and revised by his Majesty’s special Commandment . . .”

It’s the D-R that is a translation of a translation.
 
Oh, really?

From the title page: “The Holy Bible, Containing the Old Testament and the New, newly Translated out of the Original tongues & with the former Translation diligently compared and revised by his Majesty’s special Commandment . . .”

It’s the D-R that is a translation of a translation.
Certainly the KJV translators consulted earlier translations, and consulted them heavily, which is fortunate for it allowed the greatness of Wm Tyndale to be reborn some eighty years after his death.
 
The Denver Biblical School students are advised not to choose a KJV Bible for study. It’s a translation of a translation, so deemed inaccurate.
Not true, although the advice remains sound.

The King James is translated out of the original languages, but its New Testament is based off the Textus Receptus, which modern scholarship has now found to be defective.
 
Google “King James Only Controversy”. There are a number of YouTube videos showing debates of the subject. Quite interesting!
 
Google “King James Only Controversy”. There are a number of YouTube videos showing debates of the subject. Quite interesting!
Having grown up in that culture, I am SO not going there 😛

What’s funny is the churches that have it on their signboards that they are “1611 KJV Only,” but the KJV Bible that they use is the 1769 revision. Go figure 😃
 
Not true, although the advice remains sound.

The King James is translated out of the original languages, but its New Testament is based off the Textus Receptus, which modern scholarship has now found to be defective.
Thank you for the clarification, porthos 11.

Several Denver Biblical School students told me the same thing, so I assumed it was true. So much for assumption! :o
 
The best Bible is the Douay-Rheims version.
I have no problem with that translation per se but I find it very hard to read so I use rsvce but now if you prefer that version that’s fine. I’m not bashing the King James version of the Bible since there are many good translations based on it but the Oddity that is King James onlyism, is beyond me.
 
What I don’t understand is that, if this is the case, (I don’t have enough information one way or the other), why do many of these KJV onlyists have such issue with concept of Mary being conceived without sin?

Does the KJV say that Mary was conceived without sin? I know that Luke 1:28 shows that Mary was highly favored and blessed among women. Are there other references? I am not aware of a verse explicitly stating that Mary was conceived without sin. I am not a KJV onlyist, but I wonder if that is why they may not believe in the immaculate conception.
 
Does the KJV say that Mary was conceived without sin? I know that Luke 1:28 shows that Mary was highly favored and blessed among women. Are there other references? I am not aware of a verse explicitly stating that Mary was conceived without sin. I am not a KJV onlyist, but I wonder if that is why they may not believe in the immaculate conception.
 
Does the KJV say that Mary was conceived without sin? I know that Luke 1:28 shows that Mary was highly favored and blessed among women. Are there other references? I am not aware of a verse explicitly stating that Mary was conceived without sin. I am not a KJV onlyist, but I wonder if that is why they may not believe in the immaculate conception.
That actually wasn’t the point I was trying to make. And in Greek (my Koine Greek is not the best, but there are many on here that will tell you) that in Luke Mary is called “full of grace” in a tense (I don’t know the exact translation) meaning that it had already happened sometime in the past. My point was, not so much that scripture speaks or doesn’t speak of the immaculate conception (it does), but that there are people that will believe this about a single Bible translation, but not about Mary.
 
That actually wasn’t the point I was trying to make. And in Greek (my Koine Greek is not the best, but there are many on here that will tell you) that in Luke Mary is called “full of grace” in a tense (I don’t know the exact translation) meaning that it had already happened sometime in the past. My point was, not so much that scripture speaks or doesn’t speak of the immaculate conception (it does), but that there are people that will believe this about a single Bible translation, but not about Mary.
I am not in the specific group you are referring to, but I think that believing that God is capable of doing something is different then believing that God most certainly did do something.
 
Susanlo #15
Does the KJV say that Mary was conceived without sin? I know that Luke 1:28 shows that Mary was highly favored and blessed among women. Are there other references? I am not aware of a verse explicitly stating that Mary was conceived without sin. I am not a KJV onlyist, but I wonder if that is why they may not believe in the immaculate conception.
Regardless of the KJV, what is important is to know what the reality is, which the Catholic Church teaches.

The blessed Virgin was conceived immaculately free from Original Sin by the application of the merits of Christ’s’ Redemption preventively (instead of healing for the rest of mankind). Lk 1:28: “Hail full of grace.” This indicates a perfection of grace. This perfection is thus intensive and extensive – over the whole of her life from conception.

“Full of grace” is a unique title given to Mary, and suggests a perfection of grace from a past event. Mary is not just “highly favored.” She has been perfected in grace by God. “Full of grace” is only used to describe one other person - Jesus Christ in John 1:14.

Karl Keating remarks that these newer translations, based on the Greek, "are imperfect since they give the impression that the favour bestowed on Mary was no different from that given other women in the Bible…indistinguishable from the status of Elizabeth, the mother of John the Baptist; or Sarah, the wife of Abraham; or Anna, the mother of Samuel * all of whom, by the way, were long childless and were ‘highly favoured’ because God acceded to their pleas to bear children.”

Karl Keating says that the older translations convey that this grace is permanent and of a singular kind in keeping with the Greek which indicates a perfection of grace, and which is what the dogma of the Immaculate Conception teaches. He stresses that the sense of the Greek *kecharitomene *is not just “to look upon with favour, but to transform by this favour or grace.” (From René Laurentin).

Convert from Evangelicalism, ex-Pastor David B Currie, in his book *Born Fundamentalist, Born Again Catholic *thinks that St Jerome “probably did the best job of translating this passage so many centuries ago. He translated it as ‘Hail, full of grace’. The important point to notice is that Mary is not addressed by Gabriel as ‘Mary’. She is addressed as ‘full of grace’, as though that were her name. When we unpack the Greek meaning of these words, Gabriel called Mary ‘The One Most Full of God’s Gracious Gift of His Life in All Time’.”
 
KJV-onlyists are mainly Fundamental Baptists, and are rapidly disappearing from the religious landscape of America. Their view stems from poor historical understanding of how the English Bible developed alongside some pretty wild conspiracy theories.
The KJV is beautiful translation. I occasionally lapsed into it lecturing when I first reverted.
Nobody noticed. 😉
Some modern translations are pretty bad, and that is what keeps fueling the movement.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top