Why do some believe that the KJV Bible is the only Bible?

  • Thread starter Thread starter john_charles
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Some of the KJVO support comes from authors such as Gail Riplinger, who wrote New Age Bible Versions. In that book Riplinger veered wildly between a fair attempt at real scholarship, impressive citations and all, and a strange rambling, rhyming, alliterating kind of material. The point of the work was that the non-KJV versions, including the NKJV but especially modern-language versions, were part of a new age conspiracy. Upon investigation, critics found that she misquoted, conflated and misidentified sources repeatedly, and in some astonishing ways, spliced quotes to mean the opposite of what the authors had really said, etc. She also misrepresented her credentials. Rather than a theologian, Riplinger is a post-graduate in home-ec.
A small minority of KJVO believers also think even translations in other languages or the actual original Bible documents themselves are less accurate than the KJV. In that worldview, the translation process was guided by God in a unique way.
I have no idea how to talk to hardcore KJVO believers.
 
I am trying to understand WHY some people say that the only accurate Bible is the “King James Version 1611”. It seems that these believers are so entrenched with this belief that there is no room for anything other than a literal KJV only view, nothing else can be considered.Please help me understand why.
Hi

I think that is a wrong notion. KJV is only a translation from the Greek whereas Jesus, Mary and the discples were Jews and they spoke Hebrew or Aramaic. So KJV cannot be, possibly, the only accurate Bible.

I respect your religion.

Thanks
 
Which is why we have a Church. The Church decides. Not St. Jerome, not any other individual.

By the way, Trent confirmed the minimum number of books in the bible. Certain Orthodox and Eastern Catholics have more than 73 books in their bibles.
Yup, not to mention that the number 66 does not sound like a number that God would have his word contain as in 66 books. 7 is the number of perfection, 6 is the number of man. 😉 73 books sound more like God inspired than 66 books. 🙂
 
Yup, not to mention that the number 66 does not sound like a number that God would have his word contain as in 66 books. 7 is the number of perfection, 6 is the number of man. 😉 73 books sound more like God inspired than 66 books. 🙂
Interesting analogy of the number of books in the bible. Since I’m not Catholic nor was I raised Catholic, or read up on the Catholic bible or beliefs, I didn’t know too much about the Apocrypha. I do have a copy of the Lost Books of the Bible, which I don’t see the ones on the list as shown above. The Apostles Creed, Laodiceans, Paul and Seneca, I. Clement, II. Clement, Barnabus, and others are in this book.

My question is why can’t one have a KJV, and the Apocrypha? Why must one be a Catholic in order to be learned in biblical history and the Word of God?

JMO
 
There is a wealth of knowledge out there, if one has the money, time to research it.

I would love to be a fly on the wall in the Vatican Archives. 😃 I’m believing that much of the information that is in there will be made public…One Day! 😉
 
Since I’m not Catholic nor was I raised Catholic, or read up on the Catholic bible or beliefs, I didn’t know too much about the Apocrypha. I do have a copy of the Lost Books of the Bible, which I don’t see the ones on the list as shown above. The Apostles Creed, Laodiceans, Paul and Seneca, I. Clement, II. Clement, Barnabus, and others are in this book.

There are plenty of other scriptures that didn’t make it to the list of 66 or 73. At least one of them is refered to in the bible.

My question is why can’t one have a KJV, and the Apocrypha? Why must one be a Catholic in order to be learned in biblical history and the Word of God?
No reason at all.

We Catholics sometimes become very defensive when some folks make false accusations about the Catholic Church adding 7 books to the bible.
 
There is a wealth of knowledge out there, if one has the money, time to research it.

I would love to be a fly on the wall in the Vatican Archives. 😃 I’m believing that much of the information that is in there will be made public…One Day! 😉
The Vatican website once featured from its archives transcripts of Aesop’s fables done by none other than Martin Luther.
 
Originally Posted by **dthurmond **
Since I’m not Catholic nor was I raised Catholic, or read up on the Catholic bible or beliefs, I didn’t know too much about the Apocrypha. I do have a copy of the Lost Books of the Bible, which I don’t see the ones on the list as shown above. The Apostles Creed, Laodiceans, Paul and Seneca, I. Clement, II. Clement, Barnabus, and others are in this book.

There are plenty of other scriptures that didn’t make it to the list of 66 or 73. At least one of them is refered to in the bible.

My question is why can’t one have a KJV, and the Apocrypha? Why must one be a Catholic in order to be learned in biblical history and the Word of God?

None of those “lost books” of the Bible are familiar to me, and they do not make up the Apocrapha as far as I know. I never considered the Apostles Creed to be a book either.
 
the reason many people believe that the KJV is the only correct version is because they are ignorant of Bible history and WHO gave us the entire canon of scripture.

They are also ignorant that there were over 600 translations of the Bible before the KJV ever thought of being written.
 
the reason many people believe that the KJV is the only correct version is because they are ignorant of Bible history and WHO gave us the entire canon of scripture.

They are also ignorant that there were over 600 translations of the Bible before the KJV ever thought of being written.
I am not ignorant of Bible history.
All KJV folks understand there were previous translations. The central issue is those who are relying on the majority texts. That is the problem.
 
When I logged on tonight I was surprised to see this thread listing again, a year after I started it.
Just to update my thoughts:
I am amazed with the amount of confidence/arrogance (you choose) that people display regarding the KJV. The most surprising belief I’ve heard is that the TRANSLATORS of the KJV were inspired by God.
As for the Apocripha I was told that God fixed the KJV by removing it after it was originally in it
 
Originally Posted by **dthurmond **
Since I’m not Catholic nor was I raised Catholic, or read up on the Catholic bible or beliefs, I didn’t know too much about the Apocrypha. I do have a copy of the Lost Books of the Bible, which I don’t see the ones on the list as shown above. The Apostles Creed, Laodiceans, Paul and Seneca, I. Clement, II. Clement, Barnabus, and others are in this book.

There are plenty of other scriptures that didn’t make it to the list of 66 or 73. At least one of them is refered to in the bible.

My question is why can’t one have a KJV, and the Apocrypha? Why must one be a Catholic in order to be learned in biblical history and the Word of God?

None of those “lost books” of the Bible are familiar to me, and they do not make up the Apocrapha as far as I know. I never considered the Apostles Creed to be a book either.
I was comparing the information from the Lost books of the bible book to the Apocrypha. I know the Apostles Creed to be a creed, but in the book I was referencing earlier, The Apostles Creed is in there.

It is all very interesting. Like I said, I would love to have access to the Vatican Archives. There is so much information out there.

study to shew thyself approved

👍
 
Which is why we have a Church. The Church decides. Not St. Jerome, not any other individual.

By the way, Trent confirmed the minimum number of books in the bible. Certain Orthodox and Eastern Catholics have more than 73 books in their bibles.
Does that mean that it is still possible in the future, for the Catholic Church to declare the Byzantine Catholic and Orthodox secondary books as canon in the future, possibly?
 
Did you know that Erasmus was a Catholic? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erasmus
Of course he was a Catholic, but was he a GOOD Catholic?
Read this:
QUESTION: Was Erasmus, the editor of the Textus Receptus, a “good” Roman Catholic?
Code:
ANSWER: Erasmus, who edited the Greek text which was later to be known as the Textus Receptus, was an embarrassment to the pope and a poor example of a "good" Roman Catholic. 

EXPLANATION: Desiderius Erasmus was born in 1466 and died in 1536 at the age of seventy. This was no mean feat during the days when the plagues, coupled with primeval medical practices, worked together to limit the average age of a man's life to approximately 35-40 years. 
Both of his parents fell victim to that same plague while Erasmus was just a lad. He and his brother were then placed in the care of an uncle who promptly sent them off to a monastery just to be rid of them. Thus Erasmus's destiny was sealed long before he could ever have a say in the matter. 
Young Erasmus became well known for his charm, urbanity and wit, and was in possession of an obviously above average intellect. He was later to choose to be an Augustinian on the sole attribute that they were known to have the finest of libraries. 
His behavior was somewhat bizarre by Augustinian standards. He refused to keep vigils, never hesitated to eat meat on Fridays, and though ordained, chose never to function as a priest. The Roman Church had captured his body, but quite apparently his mind and heart were still unfettered. 
He is known to history as one of the most prolific writers of all times. 
Erasmus was a constant and verbal opponent of the many excesses of his church. He berated the papacy, the priesthood and the over indulgences of the monks. He stated that the monks would not touch money, but that they were not so scrupulous concerning wine and women. He constantly attacked clerical concubinage and the cruelty with which the Roman Catholic Church dealt with so called "heretics." He is even credited with saving a man from the Inquisition. 
One of his many writings consisted of a tract entitled "Against the Barbarians" which was directed against the overt wickedness of the Roman Catholic Church. 
He was a constant critic of Pope Julius and the papal monarchy. He often compared the crusade leading Pope Julius to Julius Caesar. He is quoted as saying, "How truly is Julius playing the part of Julius." He also stated, "This monarchy of the Roman pontiff is the pest of Christendom." He advised the church to "get rid of the Roman See." When a scathing satire, in which Pope Julius was portrayed as going to Hell, written in anonymity was circulated, it was fairly common knowledge that its author was Erasmus. 
He was offered a bishopric in hopes that it would silence his criticism. He rejected the bribe flat. 
Erasmus published five editions of the New Testament in Greek. They were brought out successively in 1516, 1519, 1522, 1527 and 1535. His first two editions did not contain I John 5:7 although the reading had been found in many non-Greek texts dating back as early as 150 A.D. Erasmus desired to include the verse but knew the conflict that would rage if he did so without at least one Greek manuscript for authority. Following the publication of his second edition, which like his first consisted of both the Greek New Testament and his own Latin translation, he said that he would include I John 5:7 in his next edition if just one Greek manuscript could be found which contained it. Opponents of the reading today erringly charge that the two manuscripts found had been specially produced just to oblige Erasmus's request, but this charge has never been validated and was not held at the time of Erasmus's work. 
The Roman Catholic Church criticized his works for his refusal to use Jerome's Latin translation, a translation that he said was inaccurate. He opposed Jerome's translation in two vital areas. 
He detected that the Greek text had been corrupted as early as the fourth century. He knew that Jerome's translation had been based solely on the Alexandrian manuscript, Vaticanus, written itself early in the fourth century. 
He also differed with Jerome on the translation of certain passages which were vital to the claimed authority of the Roman Catholic Church. 
Jerome rendered Matthew 4:17 thus: "Do penance, for the kingdom of Heaven is at hand." 
Erasmus differed with: "Be penitent for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." 
Erasmus was also a staunch defender of both Mark 16:9-21 and John 8:1-12. Zeal which our modern day scholars cannot seem to find. ----By Dr. Sam Gipp "Answers Book"
First part. Part two to follow.
Thanks Benaiah
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top