Where did the KJV come from?

[lostsheepindeed]

My BIL, who’s an ex-Catholic and now hardcore Fundementalist/Baptist, says that the KJV was from Assyria and that the Catholic Bible is from Alexandria. He also said that where the KJV got their Bible was way before the Catholics ever got a hold of our Bible.

This whole “argument” stems from John 5:4, where we don’t have that verse and it’s in the KJV.

I’ve always thought that the Catholics are the ones who did the Canon of the Bible, and it was during the Reformation that the Protestants took out certain books and changed/added a few words. I read “Where We Got the Bible” by Rev. Henry G. Graham.

But I have no idea where my BIL gets his ideas that there were “Protestants” BEFORE there were Catholics. He said that he will provide documentation next time. And I just want to be prepared beforehand.

I hate these “Holy Wars” with my BIL, but he bashes the Catholic Church every chance he gets and I’m just tired of it.

Thanks for any insight and/or advice you can give.

God Bless!

 

[dosdog]

bibletexts.com/kjv-tr.htm#3
skypoint.com/~waltzmn/TR.html
justus.anglican.org/resources/bio/256.html
ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/DEUTEROS.HTM
bible-researcher.com/canon2.html
latinvulgate.com/

English Translation of the Septuagint
ecmarsh.com/lxx/

Eventually, some Jews rejected the Septuagint in favor of another Greek translation before, ultimately, rejecting any Greek translation as authoratative. The Hebrew text of the Hebrew bible would not be fully stabilized until the work of a group of Jewish scribes, the Masoretes, in the early Middle Ages; this became known as the MasoreticText. In addition to finally fixing the text, they added the vowels, (Hebrew does not use seperate letters to indicate vowels), divisions, punctuations, and musical notations that govern the liturgical readings of the Torah."

Creating Judasim–History, Tradition, Practice -
by Michael L. Satlow - Satlow is an editor of Brown Judaic Studies and chair of the History and Literature of Rabbinic Judaism section of the Society of Biblical Literature,
amazon.com/Creating-Judaism-History-Tradition-Practice/dp/0231134894/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/105-1886218-0658854?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1186820215&sr=1-1

 

[strngrnrth]

KJOism and Trail-of-Bloodism go together like a pair of tube socks.
KJO: King James Only. They believe that the array of Bible manuscripts found throughout parts of three continents come through two separate schools and lines of transcription, one based in Syria and one in Egypt. Because there were some well-known Gnostics in Egypt, they believe that the Egyptian “stream of copies” is definitely contaminated with Gnostic thought. Because the believers were first called “Christians” in Syria, they believe that the “Syrian stream” is pure. Never mind that there are no differences affecting doctrine from one manuscript to another no matter how far apart they were found, that to make the superficial differences form any pattern at all the KJOs assign manuscripts to the wrong location a lot, and that there have been heretics in Asia too, not just Africa. They like the KJV for a variety of personal reasons and want to believe.
Trail-of-Blood theory says that the first church and the one that actually wrote the “Syrian stream” of manuscripts was small, simple and a bit austere, ungoverned, decentralized, and a lot like some congregations of Baptists (usually, though I think other denoms have other versions). They say that the “real Christians” fled to the mountains of Germany and nearby lands when Constantine took over Rome and that this was necessary because Constantine instituted a false church and persecuted the real church more violently than the pagans ever had. They think Constantine’s motive was political power, but to gain it he had to please Christian leaders who also wanted political influence and pagan leaders who wanted to stay in control behind the scenes. This idea was developed to help explain the fact that the Reformation took off from dissatisfaction in the mountains of Central Europe more than anywhere and that heresies had sprung up there out of proportion to the region’s population. A more likely explanation of those effects is that there was poverty and isolation in the mountains, leading to social problems and a lack of effective discipline. There were more abuses in that area and more people who had trouble understanding what was going on in Mass. There were also simple culture clashes at times. There is, of course, no evidence at all that any other church existed before the Catholic Church. There is no evidence that any group of Christians fled to the mountains and were suppressed for centuries. It’s just a way of trying to explain away the real reasons for the Reformation.

 

[Cathdefender]

My BIL, who’s an ex-Catholic and now hardcore Fundementalist/Baptist, says that the KJV was from Assyria and that the Catholic Bible is from Alexandria. He also said that where the KJV got their Bible was way before the Catholics ever got a hold of our Bible.

This whole “argument” stems from John 5:4, where we don’t have that verse and it’s in the KJV.

I’ve always thought that the Catholics are the ones who did the Canon of the Bible, and it was during the Reformation that the Protestants took out certain books and changed/added a few words. I read “Where We Got the Bible” by Rev. Henry G. Graham.

But I have no idea where my BIL gets his ideas that there were “Protestants” BEFORE there were Catholics. He said that he will provide documentation next time. And I just want to be prepared beforehand.

I hate these “Holy Wars” with my BIL, but he bashes the Catholic Church every chance he gets and I’m just tired of it.

Thanks for any insight and/or advice you can give.

God Bless!

Your BIL is totally wrong. I hope you realize now the hatred toward our Catholic faith and the misleading of the church.
There were no Protestants before 1517. Remember that. Protestants have only been around the last 500 years or so. (What does this tell you?)

 

[strngrnrth]

But I have no idea where my BIL gets his ideas that there were “Protestants” BEFORE there were Catholics. He said that he will provide documentation next time. And I just want to be prepared beforehand.

I betcha your BIL’s documents will be secondhand at best, pop literature, from a Baptist, SDA, JW or Mormon source or unattributed. Examine them. Discuss their credibility.

 

[lostsheepindeed]

Thank you for your responses. I will take a look at the links.

I’ve discussed it with him at length about when Protestants came to be. But he said that there were other Christians there, not only the Catholics.

It just seems like there’s no reasoning with him. We were talking about the Immaculate Conception, and I told him that I welcome him to make a rebuttal, so to speak. The next week, he tells me that he’s not very happy that I’m causing him to look at outside sources (other books from Protestant authors) and making him take his time away from reading the Bible. I was hurt by this, and I didn’t understand that if he truly believes in Bible ONLY, then why does he have to have outside sources? Anyway…

Thank you again for your responses.

God Bless and Peace to all!

 

[inthecloud]

KJV is also a covert form of Anglo racism too.

 

[RobHom]

Thank you for your responses. I will take a look at the links.

I’ve discussed it with him at length about when Protestants came to be. But he said that there were other Christians there, not only the Catholics.

Require him to provide “secular” historical proofs, not his denomination or sects propaganda.

It just seems like there’s no reasoning with him. We were talking about the Immaculate Conception, and I told him that I welcome him to make a rebuttal, so to speak. The next week, he tells me that he’s not very happy that I’m causing him to look at outside sources (other books from Protestant authors) and making him take his time away from reading the Bible. I was hurt by this, and I didn’t understand that if he truly believes in Bible ONLY, then why does he have to have outside sources? Anyway…

He’s already sure that he is losing the battle…if he was a Catholic as you say…he “already” knows the truth in the issue, he’s just caught himself in the middle of his own fight with himself, and he’s trying to guilt-trip you into being his “scapecoat” for his own failings. Too bad he has to look for other outside sources…aw geez, its a rough life…but apparently he can’t handle the fact that he is losing a battle he probably started. Tell him to use the guilt trip elsewhere…

Heres some VERY PROTESTANT SOURCES for information about the Blessed Virgin Mary to include the Immaculate Conception Granted, the site is Catholic, however…the Protestant Sources are the very same people known as the founders of the Reformation: Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Bullinger and Wesley…davidmacd.com/catholic/martin_luther_on_mary.htm

You can note to him the references used…that he can look up in “Protestant sources” as they are in fact “Protestant in origin”!

Thank you again for your responses.

God Bless and Peace to all!

My pleasure, you’re welcome…and Peace Be Unto You!!

 

[RobHom]

Actually, both the Douay-Rheims (Catholic Bible) and the KJV BOTH contain John 5:4…here are the actual words as they appear:

First, the Douay-Rheims:

4 And an angel of the Lord descended at certain times into the pond; and the water was moved. And he that went down first into the pond after the motion of the water, was made whole, of whatsoever infirmity he lay under.

Next the KJV:

4: For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had.

Note, from a “Protestant source” , a “history of the KJV”: *Version Information

In 1604, King James I of England authorized that a new translation of the Bible into English be started. It was finished in 1611, just 85 years after the first translation of the New Testament into English appeared (Tyndale, 1526). The Authorized Version, or King James Version, quickly became the standard for English-speaking Protestants. Its flowing language and prose rhythm has had a profound influence on the literature of the past 300 years. The King James Version present on the Bible Gateway matches the 1987 printing. The KJV is public domain in the United States. *

Here is another “Protestant Source” for the history of the KJV, its a link…maybe you should print it out and give it to him…

av1611.org/kjv/kjvhist.html

As you can see…real history…does not quite “jive” with his notions…

 

[lak611]

If you want to learn more about the making of the KJV, this book is excellent. It tells how the translation of the KJV came about and includes information about the men who were on the translation team.

 

[PaulDupre]

There are many errors in the KJV, caused by additions to the original manuscripts (like John 5:4). These were eliminated in later translations, including the New King James Version, as older and older manuscripts were discovered and used.

 

[lak611]

There are many errors in the KJV, caused by additions to the original manuscripts (like John 5:4). These were eliminated in later translations, including the New King James Version, as older and older manuscripts were discovered and used.

The D-R also includes John 5:4.

Joh 5:4 And an angel of the Lord descended at certain times into the pond and the water was moved. And he that went down first into the pond after the motion of the water was made whole of whatsoever infirmity he lay under.

 

[Cathdefender]

Why do Protestants follow a bible who was authorized by a King instead of the bible that is untouched, preserved and truthful as our Catholic bible?

 

[Rightlydivide]

Why do Protestants follow a bible who was authorized by a King instead of the bible that is untouched, preserved and truthful as our Catholic bible?

Which translation is untouched, preserved, and truthful?
And what do you mean by “untouched” and “preserved” exactly?

 

[FAB]

Why do Protestants follow a bible who was authorized by a King instead of the bible that is untouched, preserved and truthful as our Catholic bible?

Bigotry toward the Catholic faith and the Pope. It’s not as prevalent today, but if you listen carefully to some TV evangelist, it can stll be heard from time to time. There are post on this site that it’s not hidden at all. We though, pray for our brothers and sisters in Christ, to find common ground in our love for our savior and work to do his will.

Peace,
FAB

 

[tobinatorstark]

One reason why the KJV came to be is due to the fact that King James I despised the Geneva Bible. Ironically, the KJV has contains 19% of the Geneva Bible. It was no secret that King James and Queen Elizabeth I, had Queen Mary executed. The KJV was finished in 1611 about a year after the Douay-Rheims translation came out as whole. The Douay OT was finished in 1609 and the Rheims NT was completed in 1582. Both the OT and NT were translated into English from the Latin Vulgate was completed in 400. The Vulgate was declared by the Council of Trent as the official translation of the Bible. The King James since its release in 1611 has gone through many changes. One notably was the removal of the letter to the reader from the translators and the omitting of the books of Tobit, Judith, 1Maccabees, 2Maccabees, Wisdom, Baruch and Ecclesaticus(Sirach in some Catholic translations such as the NAB). The King James Version was translated by 47 men in 3 different locations with each person assign books of the bible to translate. The King James claims to be I believe translated from the Textus Receptus.

 

[Cathdefender]

Don’t Protestants realize that 7 books are missing?? Don’t they want to figure out why they are missing? Aren’t they in the least bit curious to know that all our books were compiled , especially the NT in the year 397 A.D. and their books that are missing were and are in our bible from the beginning?
If I were Protestant, I would want to investigate these facts and find out why…when they find out why, they would then figure out someone has changed the Word of God.

 

[mercygate]

Here’s the note from the NAB on John 5:4.

[4] Toward the end of the second century in the West and among the fourth-century Greek Fathers, an additional verse was known: “For [from time to time] an angel of the Lord used to come down into the pool; and the water was stirred up, so the first one to get in [after the stirring of the water] was healed of whatever disease afflicted him.” The angel was a popular explanation of the turbulence and the healing powers attributed to it. This verse is missing from all early Greek manuscripts and the earliest versions, including the original Vulgate. Its vocabulary is markedly non-Johannine.

 

[Contarini]

My BIL, who’s an ex-Catholic and now hardcore Fundementalist/Baptist, says that the KJV was from Assyria and that the Catholic Bible is from Alexandria. He also said that where the KJV got their Bible was way before the Catholics ever got a hold of our Bible.

He’s confusing (or maybe you are) the KJV with the “Textus Receptus,” the reading of the Greek New Testament found (with a lot of minor variations) in the majority of manuscripts. Ironically, the earliest manuscript of this textual tradition is called “Alexandrinus,” but the textual tradition as a whole was passed down by scribes in the Byzantine Empire and is often called the “Byzantine” text as opposed to the “Alexandrian” text. This latter is primarily represented by two very old manuscripts–Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. These are the oldest manuscripts of the NT that we have. KJV advocates cast doubt on both, arguing that since they come from a textual tradition preserved by Alexandrian scribes they have been tainted with the teachings of Origen. This is a huge leap, but these guys like huge leaps! (They also play on anti-Catholic sentiment based on the fact that “Vaticanus” comes from the place you’d expect it to come from with such a name!)

Where he gets the idea that the Textus Receptus comes from Assyria I don’t know. In fact, as I said, it comes from the Byzantine Empire (not generally something KJV fundamentalists think well of, but any stick will do. . . . )

This whole “argument” stems from John 5:4, where we don’t have that verse and it’s in the KJV.

It’s not a Catholic vs. Protestant issue. It’s an issue of versions of the Bible that follow modern textual criticism vs. those that don’t. There are both Catholic and Protestant versions with and without John 5:4.

But I have no idea where my BIL gets his ideas that there were “Protestants” BEFORE there were Catholics.

He probably means that early Christians agreed with Protestant theology more than with Catholic. Or he may be thinking of dissenting groups in the early and medieval Church.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

One reason why the KJV came to be is due to the fact that King James I despised the Geneva Bible. Ironically, the KJV has contains 19% of the Geneva Bible. It was no secret that King James and Queen Elizabeth I, had Queen Mary executed.

King James had many people executed, but he had nothing to do with the death of his own mother! That is slander.

Nor do I see how it is relevant here.

Edwin