Why are some Christians obsessed with the KJV Bible?

[PbloPicasso]

Allow me to peal away another layer of the onion. Bare with me.

The original KJV is far more Catholic than any of those who follow a different path that the teaching of Christ would care to admit. I have a 1622 Version right now. It contains the Deuterocanonical books. Further, that division of books in the form of “chapters” and verses, was not part of the original translations since it never existed. In fact, the books were not divided into chapters until around the 13th century and further into verses in the 16th century. So, when Christians try to BCV you to death, I immediately smile and laugh internally because they obviously have subscribed to Catholic materials created to simplify referencing the ancient manuscripts passed down by Church leaders, canonized in the 4th century, and translated at various times into other than Greek and Hebrew. The KJV was not the first English translation either. But, since Henry the VIII was English [ruler of English speaking world] and most of American is rooted in an inheritance of the English speaking world, combined with many other factors, including lack of education, fundamentalists grabbed hold of the KJV and propogated many false beliefs surrounding the real origins of the KJV bible.

So, next time someone quotes KJV at you, just smile and say, I see that you do in fact subscribe to accepting the Deuterocanonical texts as passed down by the Catholic Church and divided nicely by chapters and verses for you to beat up the same people that handed the bible down to you. Say, “your welcome.”

 

[Samuel63]

I have one friend, a deacon in fact, that is totally attached to a KJV that has commentary. It is the commentary that he has become attached to.

I tried to pass on the decree of vatican-i that declares the one authority for interpretation - the Catholic Church. So far, this has had no effect.

 

[Bezant]

So, next time someone quotes KJV at you, just smile and say, I see that you do in fact subscribe to accepting the Deuterocanonical texts as passed down by the Catholic Church and divided nicely by chapters and verses for you to beat up the same people that handed the bible down to you. Say, “your welcome.”

snickersnicker*

 

[Jim_Dandy]

The KJV (King James Version) is one of the worst – perhaps the very worst – translations of the Bible in circulation today.

The highly esteemed translators of the Revised Standard Version, who were commissioned by the Church of England to make a translation to replace the KJV ( which was also commissioned by the head of the C of E in the seventeenth century, King James of ill repute) has this to say:

QUOTE

Yet the King James Version has grave defects. By the middle of the nineteenth century, the development of Biblical studies and the discovery of many manuscripts more ancient than those upon which the King James version was based, made it manifest that these defects are so many and so serious as to call for a revision of the English translation.

. . .]

The King James Version of the New Testament was based upon a Greek text that was marred by mistakes, containing the accumulated errors of fourteen centuries of manuscript copying.

Preface to the Revised Standard Version, The RSV New Oxford Annotated Bible, pp. xi, xiv.

END QUOTE

Some Protestants and the Mormons are heavily invested in it. Mormom founder Joseph Smith “corrected” it, but God failed to point out all the errors to him. . Smith’s “Inspired Revision” changed some of the text to make the KJV agree with his new 19th century religion. Mormons believe the KJV (only) “insofar as it is translated correctly.” It’s their official Bible. Why some Protestants cling to it, I’ll never understand.

BTW, the so-called “Apocrypha” was not part of the “inspired Scriptures” in the KJV. It was placed in an appendix between the OT and NT in imitation of the treatment Luther gave it in his German translation when he rejected these writings. The books were included – out of place from their location in the original (Catholic!) Bible – though they were not considered Scripture by the translators of the KJV. Source: Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger by Gary Machuta.

Jim Dandy

 

[Bran_Stark]

I prefer clear, literal translations–it exposes how simple Biblical Hebrew was (e.g., the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, is actually the Tree of Good and Bad; paths of righteousness is actually circles of justice; the apple of the Tree is actually the fruit of the Tree). KJV’s language is too archaic for my taste.

Huh? The KJV calls it a fruit, not an apple.

The KJV (King James Version) is one of the worst – perhaps the very worst – translations of the Bible in circulation today.

Wow that’s pretty harsh. Sure maybe it’s not the most scholarly or strictly accurate rendering we have, but as far as simple devotional and liturgical reading goes, it’s fine.

Anyhow I’m guessing a lot of Catholic dislike of the KJV stems not from the actual text, but from the obnoxious behavior of its proponents.

 

[John7]

I’ve noticed a still-current trend among Protestant churches to hold the KJV to be the only Bible that should be used by Christians, or at the least it’s held up as the best translation in the world and that others are merely shadows of the KJV. I’ve personally challenged KJV-onlyists about going back to the Greek/Latin/Hebrew original texts and they still are very obstinate about their Bible being the only one to be used.

Seriously, what justification do people have for KJV-only?

I personally do not like the KJV as I find it difficult as someone who doesn’t speak great English to actually read it. But my prime reason for not liking the KJV is simply that I can read the original Hebrew/Greek of the Bible. Why SHOULD I then read it in translation?

Dan Wallace, Greek scholar (author of ‘Greek Grammar beyond the Basics’ ie syntax)
gave four seminars about the KJV, the quote below is from the 2nd seminar ‘The Reign of the King James’
biblicaltraining.org/history-english-bible/daniel-wallace/foundations

In the preface entitled, “The Translators to the Reader,” “They mention that some readers [may] have misgivings about the alternative renderings suggested in the margin, on the ground that they may appear to shake the authority of Scripture in deciding points of controversy.”9

But these translators had no illusions that theirs was the final word on the Word of God. They knew that later discoveries and research would help to clear up the meaning of the original. Unfortunately, this preface is no longer printed in the KJV. Its omission has been one of the major reasons why some religious groups believe that the KJV is the only inspired Bible, that the KJV is perfect in every way. As one scholar quipped, “Some people would prefer a false appearance of certainty to an honest admission of doubt.”10

In the subsequent centuries, a great deal of research and discovery has indeed helped us to understand better the original text. Translations always need to be updated when new archeological and manuscript discoveries are made.

The preface also explicitly denied that the Authorized Version was perfect. The actual statement is important to grasp; listen to what it had to say:

To those who point out defects in [the translators’ works], they answer that perfection is never attainable by man, but the word of God may be recognized in the very meanest translation of the Bible, just as the king’s speech addressed to Parliament remains the king’s speech when translated into other languages than that in which it was spoken, even if it be not translated word for word, and even if some of the renderings are capable of improvement. To those who complain that [the translators] have introduced so many changes in relation to the older English version, they answer by expressing surprise that revision and correction should be imputed as faults. The whole history of Bible translation in any language, they say, is a history of repeated revision and correction. 11

A few observations on this statement are in order. (1) The translators do not equate their work with the inspired word of God; they explicitly deny the perfection of the KJB. (2) They freely admit that even the worst translation of Scripture is still to be regarded as the Word of God. (3) They make a qualitative distinction between the text written in one language and the translation of it into another. Regarding Scripture, they admit that only the original text in Greek and Hebrew was inspired (4) They implicitly approve all later revisions of their own work, because the very nature of Bible translation involves “a history of repeated revision and correction.”

Sadly, many today who are “King James Only” advocates would deny all four of these points. Their only excuse for doing so is that they have never read the text of “The Translators to the Reader.” But just a few years ago, that preface became available as a separate book, published by the American Bible Society. It includes both the old wording as well as an updated version, along with a full commentary.

 

[7_Sorrows]

have you ever been to a Christian bookstore and seen how many translations of the protestant christian bibles that there are? maybe some churches want to have the congregation use only one translation and they choose the KJV. King James was king of a rather large empire and he wanted a new Bible written in english for all christians in the english speaking world. it was thought to be divinely inspired. it was the first Bible that i learned to read from.
i recently purchased a DRB and it is as hard to read and understand as the KJV.
it was interesting to read how it was written and the KJV had some influence on the DRB and it said the DRB had some influence on how the KJV was written.

 

[Izdaari]

It is not all Protestants who tend that way, but mainly fundamentalists, particularly Baptist fundamentalists. In my experience, a very high percentage of KJVO advocates, perhaps a majority, are IFB (Independent Fundamental Baptists).

Personally, I’m not very fond of the KJV because of the archaic language… and the scholarship is archaic too. Though I’m not Catholic, I also own a DRB, which seems a little easier to read.

I’m partial to the RSV family, including the NRSV and ESV. I also like the TNIV and the 2011 NIV. And I prefer them to contain the Deuterocanonical books, though I don’t insist on it, since I already own several that have them.

 

[liturgyluver]

It is not all Protestants who tend that way, but mainly fundamentalists, particularly Baptist fundamentalists. In my experience, a very high percentage of KJVO advocates, perhaps a majority, are IFB (Independent Fundamental Baptists).

I think you are right - there has been a hive of activity this year because of the 400-year celebrations, and as part of this some churches have used the old translation for a month or so, but have now gone back to more modern translations.

I went to a local ecumenical gathering which was fascinating, where it was acknowledged that the translation of the KJV is not always accurate, but the language used has had a lasting impact on the way (some of us) speak.

 

[Jim_Dandy]

Wow that’s pretty harsh. Sure maybe it’s not the most scholarly or strictly accurate rendering we have, but as far as simple devotional and liturgical reading goes, it’s fine.

Anyhow I’m guessing a lot of Catholic dislike of the KJV stems not from the actual text, but from the obnoxious behavior of its proponents.

The value of any translation of any document is its accuracy. What good is a Bible full of errors? Certainly it isn’t suitable for liturgy! But the KJV is held out to be an accurate translation by its proponents, “inspired” word-for-word by God Himself.

Just one example: The translators of the KJV added a gloss (a marginial note added by a copyist to a manuscript) to the text of the Our Father (the Lord’s Prayer), and the error has been perpetuated these 400 years since the KJV’s publication. Protestants, ignorant of the error, and believing the KJV to be the “pure Word of God,” have accused Catholics of changing the prayer that Jesus taught in Mt 6:13. The ending, “for Thine is the kingdom, the power, and the glory, forever,” is not part of the prayer. The words are from 1
Chronicles 29:11 and were taken from the ancient Greek liturgy of the Catholic Church, where they served as a doxology at various intervals in the Mass. This can be seen in the first-century Didache (The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles).

As a Protestant, I was trained to beat up Catholics about "their audacity in “changing the Word of God,” and delighted in doing so.

Jim Dandy
Ex-Southern Baptist, ex-agnostic, ex-atheist, ecstatic to be Catholic!

 

[ataylorfam]

So, when Christians try to BCV you to death, I immediately smile and laugh internally because they obviously have subscribed to Catholic materials created to simplify referencing the ancient manuscripts passed down by Church leaders, canonized in the 4th century, and translated at various times into other than Greek and Hebrew.

Ha! This made me remember something happened a little while back. I was in a class at a local Christian church with my 8 year old daughter - it was a class geared towards the children. They were talking about the Word of God, and the teacher was actually telling them that God is so organized because the Bible is organized by book, chapters, and verses so we can find things easily. As soon as we left I took it upon myself to inform my daughter that God didn’t just throw the Bible down filled with information and with verse numbers assigned all nicely, and told her how it really came to be how we know it today. Glad I was in the class with her so I could give her the historically accurate information.

 

[PbloPicasso]

Ha! This made me remember something happened a little while back. I was in a class at a local Christian church with my 8 year old daughter - it was a class geared towards the children. They were talking about the Word of God, and the teacher was actually telling them that God is so organized because the Bible is organized by book, chapters, and verses so we can find things easily. As soon as we left I took it upon myself to inform my daughter that God didn’t just throw the Bible down filled with information and with verse numbers assigned all nicely, and told her how it really came to be how we know it today. Glad I was in the class with her so I could give her the historically accurate information.

Perfect example of what I’ve been saying all these years. I would appear that you are one of the more fortunate ones, more precisely, your daughter. Many Catholics innocently allow their children to attend such events with their “friends” not realizing that people actually do this sort of thing. 5 years ago this month, I stopped such an event by fighting back. However, I was a member of a fundamentalist church myself, but realized that this was wrong many years earlier. While looking for evidence to prove it was wrong I found myself at a computer searching for early christian documents after being exposed to a strange sermon from that person who was doing the proselytizing, a transitional stage for my family while trying to “find a church home” for about the 5th time in our life. What I read and discovered in my research was catacombs that had been preserved and a new discovery in more recent years underneath I believe is a church. What I discovered was not a Church that tried to hide truth, but one that attempted to expose truth, by what it preserved, both intentionally and accidentally.

Within 3 weeks of missing work from emotional exhaustion by what I found and now my entire belief system debunked with evidence I chose to return to the Catholic Church and confessed 18 years of sins, a very embarrassing moment in my life that lasted approximately 20 minutes. Fortunately the priest I confessed to already knew my story after meeting with him for an hour about 2 weeks prior. He was shocked at my story and added he couldn’t blame me for why I ran from the Catholic Church now that he knew the story.

I uncovered so many things since that point in time, adding to my humiliation and asking a much deeper question: “why did I not return to the seminary where I would undoubtedly have uncovered more truth that had never been taught to me?” Unfortunately, clergy were not equipped to handle such issues, nor interested in researching the answers that were plaguing my conscience. I was not raised Catholic until much later in life, and it never made enough sense to me to “get it.” Now, I finally get it, but only after seeing why my assumptions taught from my youth were incorrect. Thus finally debunking solo scriptura for the first time in my life at the ripe age of 45 years old. My education had expanded so much with studying scripture for so many years and realizing things that are in fact in the pages of the bible and also proof that solo scriptura, faith alone, works alone, etc. are all false in and of themselves. I studied the history of the canon of scripture and it all started to fall into place. History, my friend, is was saved me from my own confused mind. Actually, grace granted to me from God. I allowed God’s grace to enter in by going to confession and making a new start.

 

[Tony888]

The value of any translation of any document is its accuracy. What good is a Bible full of errors? Certainly it isn’t suitable for liturgy! But the KJV is held out to be an accurate translation by its proponents, “inspired” word-for-word by God Himself.
Jim Dandy
Ex-Southern Baptist, ex-agnostic, ex-atheist, ecstatic to be Catholic!

The KJV is an accurate translation of the Vulgate.
Are you now arguing the Vulgate was compelte rubbish?
I wonder how the Church survived all those yearas on a pure diet of Vulgate?

Then again, maybe you think the “bad Vulgate” caused the issues behind the reformation?

 

[Nicea325]

I’ve noticed a still-current trend among Protestant churches to hold the KJV to be the only Bible that should be used by Christians, or at the least it’s held up as the best translation in the world and that others are merely shadows of the KJV. I’ve personally challenged KJV-onlyists about going back to the Greek/Latin/Hebrew original texts and they still are very obstinate about their Bible being the only one to be used.

Seriously, what justification do people have for KJV-only?

I personally do not like the KJV as I find it difficult as someone who doesn’t speak great English to actually read it. But my prime reason for not liking the KJV is simply that I can read the original Hebrew/Greek of the Bible. Why SHOULD I then read it in translation?

I own a “correct” KJV with the 7 deutorcanonical books,not the ones today with the missing books. I also own a NKJV Study Bible and to be honest it is pretty well written .I compare it to my St.Igantius Second Catholic Edition of the RSV and the footnootes are very comparable.

 

[pablope]

The KJV is an accurate translation of the Vulgate.
Are you now arguing the Vulgate was compelte rubbish?
I wonder how the Church survived all those yearas on a pure diet of Vulgate?

Then again, maybe you think the “bad Vulgate” caused the issues behind the reformation?

I think you are mistaken here. The KJV (though I stand corrected) was not based in the Vulgate. The DRB version is a translation of the Vulgate to English.

 

[Kouyate42]

Ha! This made me remember something happened a little while back. I was in a class at a local Christian church with my 8 year old daughter - it was a class geared towards the children. They were talking about the Word of God, and the teacher was actually telling them that God is so organized because the Bible is organized by book, chapters, and verses so we can find things easily. As soon as we left I took it upon myself to inform my daughter that God didn’t just throw the Bible down filled with information and with verse numbers assigned all nicely, and told her how it really came to be how we know it today. Glad I was in the class with her so I could give her the historically accurate information.

I must admit that I was myself VERY ignorant of the Bible’s earliest history until I reached the age of 19 and studied Greek, Latin and early Church history.

 

[Tony888]

I think you are mistaken here. The KJV (though I stand corrected) was not based in the Vulgate. The DRB version is a translation of the Vulgate to English.

Apologies, yes I was wrong.

The KJV was translated from Greek and Hebrew texts, bypassing the Latin Vulgate.

 

[Bran_Stark]

Just one example: The translators of the KJV added a gloss (a marginial note added by a copyist to a manuscript) to the text of the Our Father (the Lord’s Prayer), and the error has been perpetuated these 400 years since the KJV’s publication. Protestants, ignorant of the error, and believing the KJV to be the “pure Word of God,” have accused Catholics of changing the prayer that Jesus taught in Mt 6:13. The ending, “for Thine is the kingdom, the power, and the glory, forever,” is not part of the prayer. The words are from 1
Chronicles 29:11 and were taken from the ancient Greek liturgy of the Catholic Church, where they served as a doxology at various intervals in the Mass. This can be seen in the first-century Didache (The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles).

I’ll admit that the doxology is inaccurately placed. But it’s hardly false teaching - I’m pretty sure Rome agrees that the kingdom and the power and glory are God’s forever. And do recall the version of the Lord’s Prayer in St. Luke’s Gospel does not include the doxology. So the KJV is certainly amiable to the original text.

I’ve also seen the KJV attacked for its rendering of the Angelic Salutation as “Hail thou that art highly favoured”, instead of “Hail full of grace”. But the original KJV includes a footnote giving “much graced” as an alternative translation. If it really had a sinister Protestant agenda of denying honour to Our Lady, surely that note would not be found.

It seems to me it would be a splendid idea for Catholics to simply correct the handful of bothersome verses and print their own KJV-CE. I can’t locate it now, but I recall reading a quote from Cardinal Newman on this exact idea.

 

[ataylorfam]

I must admit that I was myself VERY ignorant of the Bible’s earliest history until I reached the age of 19 and studied Greek, Latin and early Church history.

Oh yes, please don’t get me wrong! I myself was very ignorant until recently (still am in so many ways!) - but I know that the person in this teaching position certainly knew better and I could not believe children were being taught things in that way. I try whenever possible to give my children all of the age appropriate information to them to prevent confusion for them as they get older. I’m sure I’ve failed plenty though! It just was a huge wake up call for me, that I really had to be on guard about what was being fed to my children, and to make sure that I continued to talk to them about it. It also made me realize how much of my youth was spent being given that same type of information, jut a basic gloss over without any real meat or meaning and no true understanding or knowledge. Made me so sad! I’m very glad I was in the class with my daughter.

 

[Jim_Dandy]

The KJV is an accurate translation of the Vulgate.
Are you now arguing the Vulgate was compelte rubbish?
I wonder how the Church survived all those yearas on a pure diet of Vulgate?

Then again, maybe you think the “bad Vulgate” caused the issues behind the reformation?

Sorry, Tony, you’ve been misinformed. Please share your source for the statement that “the KJV is an accurate translation of the Vulgate.”

The translators of the RSV, which was the official replacement for the KJV, said: “The King James Version of the New Testament was based upon a Greek text that was marred by mistakes, containing the accumulated errors of fourteen centuries of manuscript copying,” as I quoted in my post #24. The KJV is not a translation of the Vulgate.

From a Protestant website, ibri.org/Tracts/trkjvtct.htm

QUOTE: What was the Greek text on which the KJV New Testament was based? It was based on the third edition of the Greek New Testament issued by the Parisian publisher Stephanus (Latinized form of Estienne) in 1550. END QUOTE

If you’re interested in the causes of the Rebellion (aka “Reformation”), read Karl Adam’s little treatise, Roots of the Reformation, available at Amazon.

Christianity was not based on a collection of writings (the Bible), but on the revelation of Christ to his Apostles through His Church. Four centuries later, the Church produced the Bible.

Jim Dandy