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

[Chris_LaRock]

For the same reason that many hyper-Traditionalists believe that the Douay-Rhiems is the only true version in English.

The court of King James used many already existing English translation bibles in making the KJV. The DRB happened to be one they consulted. Ever compare a DRB with a KJV? They are virtually identicle in how they render scripture. I like both, personally.

 

[JoeyWarren]

Yes they are almost identical.

It’s almost like they plaguerized…

 

[journey137]

When I was in 4-6 grades I went to a private baptist school that taught that the KJV was the only true bible and we couldn’t use anything else. They also taught that the catholics wrote the DRB in response to the KJV and that the catholics added books to their bible to validate some of their teachings. Reading this thread brought back some memories and feelings such as I’m glad I’m catholic and not being lied to anymore.

 

[Zooey]

Old Bibles? What do you by old? How often do you guys re new your sacred scriptures?

With all respect, you must realize that books do wear out, especially those 100s & 1000s of years old!
What would you do, if a quran were to be in a flooded area, & destroyed by the waters? Surely you would have another one made, rather than be forever without your own “holy book”?
Same thing: books do have to be replaced.
Of course, I believe that you don’t translate the quran (which, IMHO, is foolish, but–hey! that’s me), but some of them must succumb to age and/or disaster??

But I really think you all ready knew that…

 

[Zooey]

I wonder how they evangelize the Chinese??? Or any other “foreign” language???

I have have my great-grandmother’s Bible in Dutch…Now this is so weird, you may not believe it, but I have had folk ask me “Is that a King James”? …When I say, its Dutch, not English, I get, “Yes, but is it the Dutch King James?”
I am not kidding. I couldn’t believe it…

 

[Zooey]

---

Footnotes are from:
Gail Riplinger, The History of the Bible: Erasmus and the Received Text (Ararat, Virginia: AV Publications Corp., ©2000)
This will soon be released as part of a larger book but the information above is currently available in spiral-bound format on request. Contact www.avpublications.com.

.

You’d be wise to check your sources a little better for credibility. Ms Riplinger is part of the Jack Chick crew!!
And her academic credentials consist of an active imagination & a hatred for all things & persons Catholic…
Oh, yeah–the last I heard, she was part of the bunch who claim that “the Septuagint never existed”…
To Riplinger, Chick, Rivera, & Co, all of life is a Vast Catholic Conspiracy!!:banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

 

[benaiah]

You’d be wise to check your sources a little better for credibility. Ms Riplinger is part of the Jack Chick crew!!
And her academic credentials consist of an active imagination & a hatred for all things & persons Catholic…
Oh, yeah–the last I heard, she was part of the bunch who claim that “the Septuagint never existed”…
To Riplinger, Chick, Rivera, & Co, all of life is a Vast Catholic Conspiracy!!:banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

Relax Zooey!!
I did check my sources. Ms Riplinger has some material that pertains to the main theme of this thread about people who use only the KJV. For you to verbally attack her and throw her into the Jack Chick crew is a bit paranoid. Are you insinuating by your response that you and every body else (myself included) are not capable of sifting through a persons research/book and not able to discern fact from fiction? Why not check out her (and the other sources listed) before being so judgemental and intolerant. If a person makes a scholarly point that may differ from your well researched position, simply present your sources and position in an adult manner and not accuse someone of hating Catholics. My, my, how are any non-Catholics supposed to understand the Catholic Church with this attitude.
God Bless you Zooey,
Benaiah

 

[chrisb]

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

Because it sounds really cool when read aloud!?

Oh and because all of their apologetics are dependant on it’s particular translation…

 

[UBERROGO]

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

I agree that it is a waste of time to do in depth study of CAtholics on a Baptist forum, or Baptists on a CAtholics forum. Although it would be easire to find the points of contention from a study like that.

 

[JoeyWarren]

Presbyterians of those days were staunch Anti-Catholics and believed the RCC is the Whore of Babylon and that the Pope is the Anti-Christ.

I did check them out:

Will Durant : He eventually became Presbyterian also after discovering Darwin, be came a a Socialist.
willdurant.com/bio.htm
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_Durant

J.A. Froude was also an known anti-Catholic. He started out as Anglican, but migrated as well to the Presbyterism. He studied at Westminster.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Froude
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._A._Froude

Quote from :newmanreader.org/biography/jafroude.html

1. [James Anthony Froude was an influential historian and, in middle and later life, a sceptic and (politically) an anti-Catholic. He knew J. H. Newman, who was a friend of his brothers Hurrell and William, from an early age and at Oxford collaborated with him on his History of the English Saints. This article demonstrates the powerful and enduring effect that Newman had on those coming into personal contact with him, even when they came to disagree with him.]

Roland Bainton: An Old School Lutheran. Another known anti-catholic:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roland_Bainton

Owen Chadwick: Old School Church of England. He wrote many books on the Papacy (some of them attacking it ).
Another anti-Catholic:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Owen_Chadwick

James Hastings : A Scottish Presbyterian Minister. A Kirk! Probably a supporter for slaughtering Catholics in Scotland who would not give their faith.

The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge : The Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge is a 1914 religious encyclopedia, published in thirteen volumes. It focuses on Christianity from a primarily Protestant point of view. NUFF SAID! Schaff was Swiss born and German bred and schooled (Old School Lutheran ) and Herzog was born and schooled in Germany (Old School Lutheran)

NONE OF THESE SOURCES ARE UNBIASED.

MOST ARE KNOWN ANTI-CATHOLICS OR AT LEAST ARE “PROTESTANT EXTREMISTS”.

 

[UBERROGO]

The LDS actually translates the King James into other languages.

I have heard that alot of people use the English to translate into other languages (especially Chinese). The reason I guess is that it is easier to get an English to Chinese lexican than a Greek or Hebrew to Chinese lexicon.

 

[Brendan]

When I was in 4-6 grades I went to a private baptist school that taught that the KJV was the only true bible and we couldn’t use anything else. They also taught that the catholics wrote the DRB in response to the KJV .

WOW,

Didn’t your teachers ever bother to check the dates on the versions.

The KJV was published in 1611, the DRB NT was published in 1582 and the OT was published in 1609

 

[JoeyWarren]

WOW,

Didn’t your teachers ever bother to check the dates on the versions.

The KJV was published in 1611, the DRB NT was published in 1582 and the OT was published in 1609

ahhhhhhhhhhhhh!

Ignorance of History is Ignorance of Truth!

 

[UBERROGO]

Relax Zooey!!
I did check my sources. Ms Riplinger has some material that pertains to the main theme of this thread about people who use only the KJV. For you to verbally attack her and throw her into the Jack Chick crew is a bit paranoid. Are you insinuating by your response that you and every body else (myself included) are not capable of sifting through a persons research/book and not able to discern fact from fiction? Why not check out her (and the other sources listed) before being so judgemental and intolerant. If a person makes a scholarly point that may differ from your well researched position, simply present your sources and position in an adult manner and not accuse someone of hating Catholics. My, my, how are any non-Catholics supposed to understand the Catholic Church with this attitude.
God Bless you Zooey,
Benaiah

I wouldnt call her scholarly. I have read(in an evangelical pamphlet) where she says that her G.A. Riplinger (the title on her book) means God and Riplinger. That is what She said. She wrote the book because she was haspitalized and would compare verses all day. Unfortunately she got many of them wrong and misquotes verses throughtout the entire book.

 

[benaiah]

Presbyterians of those days were staunch Anti-Catholics and believed the RCC is the Whore of Babylon and that the Pope is the Anti-Christ.

I did check them out:

Will Durant : He eventually became Presbyterian also after discovering Darwin, be came a a Socialist.
willdurant.com/bio.htm
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_Durant

J.A. Froude was also an known anti-Catholic. He started out as Anglican, but migrated as well to the Presbyterism. He studied at Westminster.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Froude
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._A._Froude

Quote from :newmanreader.org/biography/jafroude.html

Roland Bainton: An Old School Lutheran. Another known anti-catholic:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roland_Bainton

Owen Chadwick: Old School Church of England. He wrote many books on the Papacy (some of them attacking it ).
Another anti-Catholic:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Owen_Chadwick

James Hastings : A Scottish Presbyterian Minister. A Kirk! Probably a supporter for slaughtering Catholics in Scotland who would not give their faith.

The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge : The Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge is a 1914 religious encyclopedia, published in thirteen volumes. It focuses on Christianity from a primarily Protestant point of view. NUFF SAID! Schaff was Swiss born and German bred and schooled (Old School Lutheran ) and Herzog was born and schooled in Germany (Old School Lutheran)

NONE OF THESE SOURCES ARE UNBIASED.

MOST ARE KNOWN ANTI-CATHOLICS OR AT LEAST ARE “PROTESTANT EXTREMISTS”.

Hello Joey Warren,
I’m glad you checked them out. Yes, there are a lot of scholars, authors, researchers, etc. who may be writing from a NON-Catholic perspective and may be deemed ANTI-Catholic (from past history there was more extreme division between Catholics and Non-Catholics), but does that prove that their presented information is completely wrong? So am I only to use Catholic-approved sources to try to explain why some people prefer the KJV over other versions? I could get the same one-sidedness from an all Baptist forum trying to understand why Catholics pray the rosary. What would the point of that be? I enjoy this forum to try and understand Catholicism better. I didn’t know that I couldn’t express an opinion unless it lined up with Catholic theology backed up with Catholic approved sources. So you don’t agree with me. There are a lot of people that don’t agree with Catholicism. I’m here to learn, not to convince anyone that I’m right and you’re wrong. God Bless you Joey!!
Benaiah

 

[flameburns623]

To respond to the OP’s question:

Most proponents of the KJV-Only position are much better informed of the issues than folks responding to this thread credit them as being. And there are distinct differences among rival camps within that movement that are worthy of note.

FIRST are those who treat the KJV itself almost as if it were an autographa–an inspired original. They tend to argue that the KJV is God’s anointed translation for English-speaking readers of Scripture everywhere. They point to the many millions of Protestant converts who have been won to Christian faith through the preaching and exposition of the KJV. These advocates of the KJV-Only position are NOT ignorant that the KJV has been updated several times since it’s original issuance. They simply point out that the updates of the text involve only the alteration of spelling to conform to modern usage, and some corrections to misprints which occurred. Nor are these folks unaware that the KJV originally included the Apocrypha. They point out that the Apocrypha have never–even by the RCC–been accorded the same level of inspiration as the rest of Scripture–remember, Jerome also left these books out of his first edition of the Vulgate, and the RCC distinguishes these books by terming them ‘Pseudepigrapha’. Likewise, the translators of the KJV distinguished the Apocrypha from other books of Scripture by setting them in a section unto themselves, between the two Testaments; by a prefatory note to readers alerting them that these books were not esteemed as inspired; and by publishing these books using a typeface entirely different from the type used for the other books of the Old and New Testaments. For these reasons, even the most ardent advocates of the KJV as a specially-inspired translation of Scripture feel comfortable excluding the Apocrypha from contemporary editions of the KJV,

SECOND are those who feel the KJV is the best in a long tradition of English translations that predated it: the Bishop’s Bible, the Geneva Bible, the Tyndale translation, the Wycliffe translation and so forth. Such proponents of the KJV feel that contemporary translations of Scripture step out of the stream of that long tradition of English scripture translation. In so doing, such modern translations often shuck the tradition of using reverent and majestic language in favor of clarity and contemporaneity. This, feel many, undermines the sense of awe and reverence one should have as one approaches Scripture. The tendency of so many ‘translations’ to use the technique of ‘dynamic equivalency’ (paraphrasing the original text rather than actually translating it) undercuts the common understanding that every word, jot, and tittle of Scripture is directly inspired by God and ought not to be changed in any way. We see the fruits of this in many of the most-modern translations, which now use gender-neutral, gay-friendly, and even fornication-friendly language to ‘translate’ passages offensive to some.

Moreover, those in this camp feel that the KJV helps to preserve sound doctrinal exegesis: while it is true that heretics have misused the KJV to justify false doctrine, they typically do so by setting some other authority about the plain text of Scripture. Hence, although the Christian Scientists use the KJV almost exclusively, they read it through the prism of Science & Health; although Mormons honor the KJV as the most-perfect of English versions, they place the authority of Joseph Smith and of his successors about the KJV.

THIRD are those who feel that the KJV is the most-reliable translation because it is the only extant translation–apart from the Douay–which relies on the manuscript tradition known variously as the ‘Byzantine’ tradition, as the ‘Textus Receptus’, or as the ‘Majority Text’. All other extant English translations, beginning with the Revised Version, have used some other tradition of manuscripts, on the argument that other manuscripts have been discovered since the release of the KJV which are much older than those used by the translators of the KJV. This comes down to a disagreement over whether ‘older is better’ or ‘more is better’: modern translations almost universally assume the first position, while supporters of the Textus Receptus argue for the second. One should understand that the early Church fathers, including Jerome in his Vulgate, used manuscripts within the same family as the Textus Receptus, so that if one had to reconstruct the Bible exclusively from the writings of early Christians, one would essentially end up with the manuscripts which were the basis for the KJV. The proponents of the KJV-Only position argue that the older manuscripts survived largely because they were doctrinally suspect and therefore little-used; the Byzantine tradition of manuscripts were used regularly and hence wore out and had to be copied more often.

Hope this helps!!!

 

[JoeyWarren]

Hello Joey Warren,
I’m glad you checked them out. Yes, there are a lot of scholars, authors, researchers, etc. who may be writing from a NON-Catholic perspective and may be deemed ANTI-Catholic (from past history there was more extreme division between Catholics and Non-Catholics), but does that prove that their presented information is completely wrong? So am I only to use Catholic-approved sources to try to explain why some people prefer the KJV over other versions? I could get the same one-sidedness from an all Baptist forum trying to understand why Catholics pray the rosary. What would the point of that be? I enjoy this forum to try and understand Catholicism better. I didn’t know that I couldn’t express an opinion unless it lined up with Catholic theology backed up with Catholic approved sources. So you don’t agree with me. There are a lot of people that don’t agree with Catholicism. I’m here to learn, not to convince anyone that I’m right and you’re wrong. God Bless you Joey!!
Benaiah

There no hard feelings. You can express your opinions. But be warned when you do quote those that have a known “Militant Anti-Catholic” stand, you will encounter comments like mine. Especially more so if they come from someone associated with Jack Chick.

Continue to enjoy.

And God Bless and Go live the Gospel

 

[JoeyWarren]

I actually use the KJV version to quote from and use in debate. I was never opposed to it, I just oppose the ONLY mentality.

 

[JoeyWarren]

Although Jack Chick and I do agree on one thing. The NIV is a work of Satan.

Whole verses taken out and relegated to a footnote.

That’s like cutting out a piece of God and throwing it on the ground IMHO.

 

[benaiah]

Flameburns623,
Very well said, I lean more to position #3. Did you ever hear of an Anglican of the 19th century named Dean John Burgon? He wrote several well researched books on this subject. He also has written 16 Huge volumes (still located in a museam in England) of verses (based on the Byzantine greek text) quoted by the early church fathers, gleaned from their letters and lexicons. I don’t have the book in front of me right now, but I do believe it was well over 85,000 verses. Many 100-200 years before Vaticanis and Sinaticus were written.
God Bless,
Benaiah