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.
Did you know that Erasmus was a Catholic? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erasmus
Part two:
Possibly Erasmus’s greatest gift to mankind was his attitude toward the common man. In the rigidly “classed” society in which he lived, he was an indefatigable advocate of putting the Scripture in the hands of the common man. While Jerome’s Latin had been translated at the bidding of the Roman hierarchy, Erasmus translated his Latin with the express purpose of putting it into the hands of the common people of his day. A practice that the Roman Catholic Church knew could be dangerous to its plan to control the masses.
Erasmus is quoted as saying, “Do you think that the Scriptures are fit only for the perfumed?” “I venture to think that anyone who reads my translation at home will profit thereby.” He boldly stated that he longed to see the Bible in the hands of “the farmer, the tailor, the traveler and the Turk.” Later, to the astonishment of his upper classed colleagues, he added “the masons, the prostitutes and the pimps” to that declaration.
Knowing his desire to see the Bible in the hands of God’s common people, it seems not so surprising that God was to use his Greek text for the basis of the English Bible that was translated with the common man in mind, the King James Bible.
It has been said that “Erasmus laid the egg that Luther hatched.” There is probably far more truth to this statement than can be casually discerned. For the reformers were armed with Erasmus’s Bible, his writings and his attitude of resistance to Roman Catholic intimidation. Of Luther he said, “I favor Luther as much as I can, even if my cause is everywhere linked with his.” He wrote several letters on Luther’s behalf, and wholeheartedly agreed with him that salvation was entirely by grace, not works.
He refused pressure by his Roman Catholic superiors to denounce Luther as a heretic. If Erasmus had turned the power of his pen on Luther, it would undoubtedly have caused far more damage than the powerless threats of the pope and his imps were able to do. As it is, only his disagreement with Luther’s doctrine of predestination ever prompted him to criticize the Reformer with pen and ink.
Erasmus’s greatest point of dissension with the Roman Church was over its doctrine of salvation through works and the tenets of the church.
He taught that salvation was a personal matter between the individual and God and was by faith alone. Of the Roman system of salvation he complained, “Aristotle is so in vogue that there is scarcely time in the churches to interpret the gospel.” And what was “the gospel” to which Erasmus referred? We will let him speak for himself.
“Our hope is in the mercy of God and the merits of Christ.” Of Jesus Christ he stated, "He … nailed our sins to the cross, sealed our redemption with his blood. " He boldly stated that no rites of the Church were necessary for an individual’s salvation. “The way to enter paradise,” he said, “is the way of the penitent thief, say simply, Thy will be done. The world to me is crucified and I to the world.”
Concerning the most biblical sect of his time, the Anabaptists, he reserved a great deal of respect. He mentioned them as early as 1523 even though he himself was often called the “only Anabaptist of the 16th century.” He stated that the Anabaptists that he was familiar with called themselves “Baptists.” (Ironically, Erasmus was also the FIRST person to use the term “fundamental.”)
So we see that when Erasmus died on July 11, 1536, he had led a life that could hardly be construed to be an example of what could be considered a “good Catholic.”
But perhaps the greatest compliment, though veiled, that Erasmus’s independent nature ever received came in 1559, twenty-three years after his death. That is when Pope Paul IV put Erasmus’s writings on the “Index” of books, forbidden to be read by Roman Catholics.

By Sam Gipp
“Answers Book”

Thanks
Benaiah
 
The writings of Sam Gipp, Peter Ruckman, Jack Chick and others express the attitude and opions that made me start this thread.I have read maby of their articles and am amazed with hatred toward any church that disagrees with them.I know that hatred is a strong word but it truly fits.Many times I am left wondering where the compasion for other christians is.
 
Thank you Benaiah for such a detailed account on Erasmus. It prompted me to look up information on him, which I found on Wikipedia.

Thank you.

Study to shew thyself approved.

👍
 
I am at work and do not have the time to read the entire Wikipedia attachment, but at a quick glimpse noted that He believed in the real presence of the Eucharist (Catholic) and didn,t agree totally with Luther.Luther refered to him as a coward and Erasmus dreaded any change in doctrine.
Should we not read and consider all the information when examining someones writings and also consider the sources.I am not the most literate computer geek and could be wrong on this but have heard that wikipedia may not be a reliable web site?
 
I typed in Erasmus in google and the aforementioned link came up. There were other links, but time does not permit me to research further at this point.

😉
 
I am at work and do not have the time to read the entire Wikipedia attachment, but at a quick glimpse noted that He believed in the real presence of the Eucharist (Catholic) and didn,t agree totally with Luther.Luther refered to him as a coward and Erasmus dreaded any change in doctrine.
Should we not read and consider all the information when examining someones writings and also consider the sources.I am not the most literate computer geek and could be wrong on this but have heard that wikipedia may not be a reliable web site?
Greetings John Charles,
It is amazing how these posts keep going on even over a year.
I just wanted to re-post a reply I made to you over a year ago in this thread; it may help when searching, reading and considering ALL the information.👍
God Bless,
Benaiah

Hello John Charles,
I am a Baptist and I read and use the King James Bible. I read it, not because I was “told” to, but arrived here after many years of study.I have read it cover to cover at least 25 times or more. I also own a copy of an original 1611 King James Bible and a copy of the Nuremberg Polyglot (1599), and over 50 different modern translations of the Bible since the mid 1880’s. I have studied New testament Greek (both the 5-case and 8-case) and Hebrew (but only 2 years). I have Copies of many of the greek manuscripts and even a copy of the vaticanis mss (B).
I am not trying to pat myself on the back or insinuate that anyone has to pursue indepth study to this degree, but the point I am trying to make is for one to look at both sides of the coin.
Let me be more specific. I am on this forum to observe Catholic behavior and responses to various topics. To further my study on Catholicism I have read the 1994 Catholic Catechism endorsed by the late Pope John Paul II, the Vatican II (by Flanary), and many books by Karl Keating (which is how I found this site), and own a set of the Catholic Encyclopedia. I would not waste my time trying to explore Catholicism on a Fundamental Baptist or Protestant web site or forum. I do believe (from experience) that they would be redundant and extremely one-sided.
My suggestion would be to explore some of their web sites that are King James “only”, and see what they have written and check out their list of references/sources, to see why they believe the way they do, about the King James Bible. I would recommend the following:
www.AV1611.com , www.biblefortoday.org , www.biblebelievers.net , www.wayoflife.org and www.bibleanswers.us (this site has an open KJV forum on it). Please ignore any uncharitable remarks about Catholics if mentioned on the forum (just like I do on this or any other forum against Baptists or people who prefer to use and believe the King James Bible).
I am not trying to convince you one way or the other. I encourage you to just try to explore both sides to the best of your ability. Most Catholics that I know are pretty open minded and would not be “offended”.I think that the less censorship people are subjected to, the better. I applaud the access to the internet and forums such as this. I encourage people to know what and why they believe the way they do (I’ll get off my soap box now).
John Charles, I hope that this will be helpful in answering your original post.
God Bless,
Benaiah
 
Hello Benaiah
Thank You for the web site attachments.I do think that I am open minded as are my catholic friends.My frustrations with the “KJV Fundamentalists” is that the one’s I know are not, in fact I find there lack of openess very un-christian.It seems more time is spent defaming other religions or beliefs so as to prove themselves right while in actuallity they are presenting themselves in a very negative way. This attitude turns off many people ands pushes them away rather than gathering Gods flock together. Now by pushing them away they quote scripture as proof that they are right because the Bible states that brother will be against brother father against father… It is a never ending downward spiral.
Also some claims, as above , are so unsubstantiated that they come off as way out in left field.
-The KJV 1611 ENGLISH version is the ONLY TRUE word of God
-God corrected the KJV 1611 after it was written by removing the apocripha
-The TRANSLATORS of the KJV 1611 were INSPIRED
-…
-…
The list continues but these are the ones I can whip off the top of my head
Am I the only one that feels this is putting to much emphasis on the particular book and clouding the message our Lord sent. Jesus message was more about peace-unity-salvation-love than seperation.
I have also heard them refer to the catholic church as a cult but am I wrong in seeing them as one?
 
Hello Benaiah
Thank You for the web site attachments.I do think that I am open minded as are my catholic friends.My frustrations with the “KJV Fundamentalists” is that the one’s I know are not, in fact I find there lack of openess very un-christian.It seems more time is spent defaming other religions or beliefs so as to prove themselves right while in actuallity they are presenting themselves in a very negative way. This attitude turns off many people ands pushes them away rather than gathering Gods flock together. Now by pushing them away they quote scripture as proof that they are right because the Bible states that brother will be against brother father against father… It is a never ending downward spiral.
Also some claims, as above , are so unsubstantiated that they come off as way out in left field.
-The KJV 1611 ENGLISH version is the ONLY TRUE word of God
-God corrected the KJV 1611 after it was written by removing the apocripha
-The TRANSLATORS of the KJV 1611 were INSPIRED
-…
-…
The list continues but these are the ones I can whip off the top of my head
Am I the only one that feels this is putting to much emphasis on the particular book and clouding the message our Lord sent. Jesus message was more about peace-unity-salvation-love than seperation.
I have also heard them refer to the catholic church as a cult but am I wrong in seeing them as one?
Hello John Charles,
I agree that many of my Baptist brethren may come off sounding self-righteous, and I can’t speak for them. But the original post was the question “Why do some believe that the KJV Bible is the only Bible?”. I was only trying to help answer that question. Just as Catholics may have a difference of opinion or view about many varied topics, Baptists do too. My view of the King James Bible is more of a scholars view. For me it is the best translation into the english language based on the majority and best manuscript evidence historically that I have found. I do not condemn or judge anyone who chooses to use a different version, howbeit I may view it as a poor choice or an inferior text, based on my personal research. I do not view a person’s choice of Bible in connection with one’s salvation. I believe a person can be saved by trusting on the Lord Jesus Christ without ever having seen a Bible of any type. Will they grow in the Lord without having a knowledge and understanding of God’s words? I say they will be limited like one with poor nutrition and living in a dark cave.I have rambled on too long, Sorry.
Have Blessed Christmas season,
Benaiah
 
Hello John Charles,
I agree that many of my Baptist brethren may come off sounding self-righteous, and I can’t speak for them. But the original post was the question “Why do some believe that the KJV Bible is the only Bible?”. I was only trying to help answer that question. Just as Catholics may have a difference of opinion or view about many varied topics, Baptists do too. My view of the King James Bible is more of a scholars view. For me it is the best translation into the english language based on the majority and best manuscript evidence historically that I have found. I do not condemn or judge anyone who chooses to use a different version, howbeit I may view it as a poor choice or an inferior text, based on my personal research. I do not view a person’s choice of Bible in connection with one’s salvation. I believe a person can be saved by trusting on the Lord Jesus Christ without ever having seen a Bible of any type. Will they grow in the Lord without having a knowledge and understanding of God’s words? I say they will be limited like one with poor nutrition and living in a dark cave.I have rambled on too long, Sorry.
Have Blessed Christmas season,
Benaiah
Benaiah, thank you for providing the links and for your thorough and charitable explanations. :blessyou:
 
The Last time I looked at a KJV Bible I noticed The 7 Deutero-Canonical books, erroneously called “The Apocrypha”, were missing. If fact they seem to be missing in all non-Catholic Bibles.
 
Um that really doesn’t help, I am not going to buy a KJV Bible just to see if the books are present. If you don’t mind listing them (all the books) I could corroborate them.
Sure. The books of the Apocrypha are: 1 Esdras, 2 Esdras, Tobit, Judith, the rest of Esther, the Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch (with the Epistle of Jeremiah), the Song of the Three Holy Children, the History of Susanna, Bel and the Dragon, the Prayer of Manasses, 1 Maccabees, and 2 Maccabees.
 
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?
Good question. I don’t know.
 
The Last time I looked at a KJV Bible I noticed The 7 Deutero-Canonical books, erroneously called “The Apocrypha”, were missing. If fact they seem to be missing in all non-Catholic Bibles.
The Brittish AV1611 had them. The American Bible printers took them out. Still inside of most brittish editions of the KJV.
And they still are reading from them in the Church of England. They were deleted from the American ones following puritan doctrine.
The Eastern Catholic Churches Bibles have the Orthodox full canon.
The Dead Sea Scrolls seem to support the Septuagint on the canon issue, and in the text!
I think that the obsession of Protestant and most Catholic scholars of translating the Bible from the original text, in other words the Masoretic OT was severly misguided from a christian’s point of view. The older text was better for historical and theological reasons.
 
A couple quick points.

(1) The KJV was great for its time, and I find much of its language still moving today. Still, I recall wondering as a child why I didn’t want the Lord as my shepherd (“The Lord is my shepherd I shall not want”) and why I had to suffer to come to Jesus (“Suffer the little children to come unto me…”) Etc. Many people find newer translations clearer - and especially on the mission field where modern English is enough of a problem without reaching back 400 years to Elizabethan English.

(2) Most of my old and large-size copies of the KJV have the Apocrypha between the Old and New Testaments. Why is it not in the Protestant canon? The Protestant Old Testament follows the Hebrew scriptures, which makes sense to many. Most Protestants regard the Apocrypha favorably, but not as a valid part of the 39 books that comprise the Old Testament.
(3) Just about every version of the Bible has something to say for it and I find it silly to argue over which translation is valid. We have different tastes. I recall a Bible class where we were encouraged to bring in different translations. This added to our discussion and our insights. Hebrew and Greek words sometimes may be translated in different ways, and it's helpful to have different translations in Bible study situations.
 
A couple quick points.

(1) The KJV was great for its time, and I find much of its language still moving today. Still, I recall wondering as a child why I didn’t want the Lord as my shepherd (“The Lord is my shepherd I shall not want”) and why I had to suffer to come to Jesus (“Suffer the little children to come unto me…”) Etc. Many people find newer translations clearer - and especially on the mission field where modern English is enough of a problem without reaching back 400 years to Elizabethan English.
I have a book titled I Never Knew That Was in the Bible!. It gives the meaning of many archaic words in the KJV, and it also gives examples of their use in other literature, such as Shakespeare’s writings. The book also mentions how some of the common expressions in today’s language have their origins from the KJV, such as “fly in the ointment” and “leopard can’t change his spots”.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top