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.
I am a Catholic, but I like the KJV. No, I don’t think it is the only accurate translation. I also like the Douay-Rheims, the RSV, and the NRSV. By the way, the KJV New Testament is based on a translation by a Catholic (a fellow named Erasmus). :bible1:
 
I am a Catholic. I like the KJV, although I don’t think it is the only accurate translation. Then again, I also like Shakespeare. I have used the KJV in my Catholic adult Sunday school classes, which are Bible study. 👍
 
The Anglican Church’s King James Bible took decades to overcome the more popular Protestant Church’s Geneva Bible. One of the greatest ironies of history, is that many Protestant Christian churches today embrace the King James Bible exclusively as the “only” legitimate English language translation… yet it is not even a Protestant translation! It was printed to compete with the Protestant Geneva Bible Throughout the 1600’s, as the Puritans and the Pilgrims fled the religious persecution of England to cross the Atlantic and start a new free nation in America, they took with them their precious Geneva Bible, and rejected the King’s Bible. America was founded upon the Geneva Bible, not the King James Bible.
greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/

382 AD: Jerome’s Latin Vulgate Manuscripts Produced which contain All 80 Books (39 Old Test. + 14 Apocrypha + 27 New Test).

1455 AD: Gutenberg Invents the Printing Press; Books May Now be mass-Produced Instead of Individually Hand-Written. The First Book Ever Printed is Gutenberg’s Bible in Latin.

1516 AD: Erasmus Produces a Greek/Latin Parallel New Testament

The History of the Textus Receptus
The success of Erasmus’s edition soon called forth new Greek testaments, all of them based largely on his. The first of these was published by Aldus Manutius in 1518 Authorized in 1604 and published in 1611, the King James version naturally is based on the Textus Receptus
skypoint.com/~waltzmn/TR.html

Desiderius Erasmus
His religious training was obtained from the study of St. Jerome and Lorenzo Valla. In 1491 a lucky accident freed him from monastic life. The Bishop of Cambrai was minded to visit Italy and chose Erasmus as secretary and traveling companion, attracted by the young man’s linguistic attainments; he also ordained him priest in 1492. The journey was never made, but Erasmus remained in the service of the bishop, who, in 1496, sent him to Paris to complete his studies. The scholastic method of instruction then prevalent at Paris was so repugnant to him that he spent much of his time travelling through France and the Netherlands, receiving occasionally friendly help; he was also for a while at Orléans, where he worked at his collection of proverbs, the later “Adagia”. The money for a trip to England he earned by acting as tutor to three Englishmen, from whom he also obtained valuable letters of introduction

1535 AD: Myles Coverdale’s Bible; The First Complete Bible printed in the English Language (80 Books: O.T. & N.T. & Apocrypha).

1537 AD: Tyndale-Matthews Bible; The Second Complete Bible printed in English. Done by John “Thomas Matthew” Rogers (80 Books).

1539 AD: The “Great Bible” Printed; The First English Language Bible Authorized for Public Use (80 Books).

1560 AD: The Geneva Bible Printed; The First English Language Bible to add Numbered Verses to Each Chapter (80 Books).

1568 AD: The Bishops Bible Printed; The Bible of which the King James was a Revision (80 Books).

1609 AD: The Douay Old Testament is added to the Rheims New Testament (of 1582) Making the First Complete English Catholic Bible; Translated from the Latin Vulgate (80 Books).

1611 AD: The King James Bible Printed; Originally with All 80 Books. The Apocrypha was Officially Removed in 1885 Leaving Only 66 Books.

1782 AD: Robert Aitken’s Bible; The First English Language Bible (KJV) Printed in America.

1846 AD: The Illuminated Bible; The Most Lavishly Illustrated Bible printed in America. A King James Version, with All 80 Books.
 
KJV-onlyists are not idiots and they are not crazy–they are simply trying to salvage the hopeless position of *Sola Scriptura *they find themselves in.
That’s one reason. Another is due to English nationalism in English-speaking countries, such as Singapore, India, Australia, and New Zealand. English purists love the KJV.
If the Bible is the final rule of faith, then it requires a completely accurate translation.
KJV is written in old English and I hardly can understand the language. I only use it for quoting because it is not copyrighted, unlike the RSV. I despise copyright law as this is Anti-Christian. Is there a good translation of the Bible in modern English that is not copyrighted?
One would think this would demand that only the earliest Greek copies be used for this,
Greek!? Was not the New Testament written in Aramaic, as Jesus himself spoke Aramaic? Maronites and Chaldeans still speak Aramaic, exactly the same dialect as Jesus.
 
Greek!? Was not the New Testament written in Aramaic, as Jesus himself spoke Aramaic? Maronites and Chaldeans still speak Aramaic, exactly the same dialect as Jesus.
Actually, the Gospel of Matthew is the only New Testament book that I am aware of to be written originally in Aramaic; somebody please correct me if I am wrong. The original Aramaic version of Matthew has been lost, and the oldest manuscripts of Matthew that are still extant are in Greek; but there is enough evidence to show that Matthew did write his Gospel in Aramaic.
 
I still feel that the Catholic rejection of the King James Version comes from the fact that it’s a protestant bible. Plain and simple.
 
I don’t feel that “Idiots” is a very Christian response.The people I’ve met that are KJV onlies are extremely passionate of there belief.There study of scripture, allthough limited to KJV only, is much more impressive than my own or for that matter most of my catholic brethren.
How about “blind idiots” John? What is unChristian about that response? Absolutely nothing.
 
I still feel that the Catholic rejection of the King James Version comes from the fact that it’s a protestant bible. Plain and simple.
No we just know better
Hebrews 11 encourages us to emulate the heroes of the Old Testament and in the Old Testament “Women received their dead by resurrection. Some were tortured, refusing to accept release, that they might rise again to a better life” (Heb. 11:35).
one thing you can never find—anywhere in the Protestant Old Testament, from front to back, from Genesis to Malachi—is someone being tortured and refusing to accept release for the sake of a better resurrection. If you want to find that, you have to look in the Catholic Old Testament—in the deuterocanonical books Martin Luther cut out of his Bible. The story is found in 2 Maccabees 7, where we read that during the Maccabean persecution.This is but one example of the New Testaments’ references to the deuterocanonicals
New Testament passages with references to the Apocrypha
Code:
Mat 6:7	 Ecclesiasticus 7:14	   
Mat 23:37	 2 Esdras 1:30	   
Mat 27:43	 Wisdom 2:15-16	   
Luke 6:31	 Tobit 4:15	   
Luke 14:13 Tobit 4:7	   
John 10:22	1 Maccabees 4:59	   
Rom 9:21	  Wisdom 15:7	   
Rom 11:34	  Wisdom 9:13	   
2 Cor 9:7	  Ecclesiasticus 35:9	   
Heb 1:3	 Wisdom 7:26
Up until the 1880’s every Protestant Bible had 80 books, not 66!
This has left most modern-day Christians believing the popular myth that there is something “Roman Catholic” about the Apocrypha. There is, however, no truth in that myth, and no widely-accepted reason for the removal of the Apocrypha in the 1880’s has ever been officially issued by a mainline Protestant denomination
 
How about “blind idiots” John? What is unChristian about that response? Absolutely nothing.
How about unblind brilliance M_Oliver?

Is there not anything that is not unChristian regarding the inverse principle of anything which has indeed never been said before?

Just wondering. 🙂
 
As you should know, Christians don’t re-new Scripture 🙂
Most Muslims have this faulty belief that Christians have re-new, altered and corrupted Scripture. This is made worse because most Muslims cannot speak English fluently enough. When they see Christians calling translations as Bibles, they think its like having many Qur’ans. Qur’an in Muslim lands is sacred and there is only one Qur’an, the Arabic version.
 
That material is utter foolishness of men Mr. Ex Nihilo. I prefer the perfection of God’s word…
 
If that’s the case, Catholics should like the KJV more than they do. It agrees with them.
Cradle Catholics could not give a rats a_s_s about the KJV nor do they give it second glance. Why settle with hamburger(KJV) when you have the Steak(DR) in front of you?
 
Cradle Catholics could not give a rats behinder about the KJV nor do they give it second glance. Why settle with hamburger(KJV) when you have the Steak(DR) in front of you?
Some people have never had Steak-Douay-Rheims Bible
drbo.org/

KJV-Onlyism Biblical or Cultic?the TEXTUS RECEPTUS or THE RECEIVED TEXT as presented in the KJV. The manuscripts that the KJV were based on were late, with none earlier than the 10th century
rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/Psychology/kjvonly.htm
 
Some people have never had Steak-Douay-Rheims Bible
drbo.org/

KJV-Onlyism Biblical or Cultic?the TEXTUS RECEPTUS or THE RECEIVED TEXT as presented in the KJV. The manuscripts that the KJV were based on were late, with none earlier than the 10th century
rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/Psychology/kjvonly.htm
True, they don’t give a rats behinder about the DR either, they are content with the NAB or one of it’s equivalents(a better steak, I think it has Heinz on it…)…
 
40.png
dosdog:
KJV-Onlyism Biblical or Cultic?the TEXTUS RECEPTUS or THE RECEIVED TEXT as presented in the KJV. The manuscripts that the KJV were based on were late, with none earlier than the 10th century
Don’t oversimplify the issue, please. The Latin Vulgate is based on texts which agree fundamentally with the Textus Receptus. The pre-Nicene Christian writers quoted Scriptural sources which agreed fundamentally with the Textus Receptus. Even the original Douay Bible, indirectly, depended upon texts derived primarily from the Textus Receptus (since the original Douay was actually a translation of the Latin Vulgate and not a direct translation from the Greek or Hebrew. Proponents of the Textus Receptus position suggest that there are no extant manuscripts for the T-R earlier than the 10th Century because the T-R was used extensively and the manuscripts simply wore out.
Up until the 1880’s every Protestant Bible had 80 books, not 66!
I think your date is rather late. Puritans were militating for the removal of the Apocrypha in the 1690’s. It was in the early 1820’s that the British and Foreign Mission Society authorized the production of inexpensive Bibles for mission work which left the Apocrypha out in order to save space and weight when sending these ‘missionary bibles’ overseas. The Society’s action influenced other publishers to do the same so that it became very rare even well before the Civil War to find a Bible which included the Apocrypha. Please note also my prior notes about how the Apocrypha have ever been given a different status abong the books of the Bible.
40.png
Murtad:
Greek!? Was not the New Testament written in Aramaic, as Jesus himself spoke Aramaic? Maronites and Chaldeans still speak Aramaic, exactly the same dialect as Jesus.
The New Testament was written in Greek. Christ by the way did not write anything that we know of; His words were written down after His Resurrection and Ascension, by His apostles. Some “scholars” speculate about a pre-existing source for the New Testament, since lost, which may have been in Aramaic. Christ’s native tongue may have been Aramaic, but there is evidence even within the New Testament that Christ at least sometimes addressed people in Greek, the lingua franca of the day. Christ read the scrolls in synagogue, suggesting that He could both read and speak Hebrew. Some speculate that He was fluent enough in Latin to speak to Pilate in that language. Multilingualism was common in the ancient world. It is true that some peoples do speak Aramaic even today, but the language is scarcely the ‘exact same dialect’ as that spoken by Christ. Aramaic, like all languages, has undergone changes over the millenia. Muhammed would not understand the Arabic of the 21st century, either.
 
Erasmus’s third edition of 1522 contained one truly unfortunate innovation: The “Three Heavenly Witnesses” in 1 John 5:7-8. These were derived from the recently-written Codex 61, and (as the famous story goes) included by Erasmus “for the sake of his oath.” Sadly, they have been found in almost every TR edition since
Erasmus made his own Greek translation from the Latin. He admitted to what he had done, but the result was a Greek text containing readings not found in any Greek manuscript – but which were faithfully retained through centuries of editions of the Textus Receptus. This included even certain readings which were not even correct Greek (Scrivener offers as an example Rev. 17:4 AKAQARTHTOS).
(a good example of this is the doxology of Romans, which Erasmus placed after chapter 16 in accordance with the Vulgate, rather than after 14 along with the Byzantine text)
Scrivener reconstructed the text of the KJV in 1894, finding some 250 differences from Stephanus. Jay P. Green, however, states that even this edition does not agree entirely with the KJV, listing differences at Matt. 12:24, 27; John 8:21, 10:16 (? – this may be translational); 1 Cor. 14:10, 16:1; compare also Mark 8:14, 9:42; John 8:6; Acts 1:4; 1 John 3:16, where Scrivener includes words found in the KJV in italics as missing from their primary text
skypoint.com/~waltzmn/TR.html

Jerome’s Latin Vulgate (405 A.D.)
speedbible.com/vulgate/index.htm

kalvesmaki.com/LXX/
The earliest, and best known, source for the story of the Septuagint is the Letter of Aristeas, a lengthy document that recalls how Ptolemy (Philadelphus II [285–247 BCE]), desiring to augment his library in Alexandria, Egypt, commissioned a translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek. Ptolemy wrote to the chief priest, Eleazar, in Jerusalem, and arranged for six translators from each of the twelve tribes of Israel. The seventy-two (altered in a few later versions to seventy or seventy-five) translators arrived in Egypt to Ptolemy’s gracious hospitality, and translated the Torah (or Pentateuch: the first five books of the Hebrew Scriptures) in seventy-two days. Although opinions as to when this occurred differ, scholars find 282 BCE an attractive date.

The publisher has included this preface because it gives an accurate picture regarding the origin of the Douay-Rheims translation as opposed to the origin of the King James translation and others. Keep in mind that Gordon Winrod was not a Catholic and no one can claim that he was biased toward the Catholic Bible.

This reprinting is of the 1582 A.D. Rheims Testament, and of the 1635 A.D. reprint of the Douay Old Testament, reproduced in a 10 per cent reduction from original actual size, making available, once again, by the grace of God, the most faithful English text of Holy Scripture, as translated from the sole authoritative source, the Latin Vulgate.

The Preface to the Rheims New Testament states that “most of the auncient Heretikes were Grecians, & therfore the Scriptures in Greeke were more corrupted by them, as the auncient fathers often complaine.” Sixteenth century Greek manuscripts were neither as old nor as authoritative as the Latin Vulgate of the 4th century, some of them having been recently constructed by enemies of Christianity for the purpose of altering the text of Holy Scripture. Especially, the reader is urgently referred to the third page of the translators’ introduction to the Old Testament, beginning with the words: “But here an other question may be proposed: Why we translate the Latin text, rather then the Hebrew, or Greke…”
 
Actually alot of them have no idea what a real 1611 version is.

Today’s KJV’s are quite different from the 1611.
Yeah the original King James also included the books that the Catholic Bible has today, it was later that the protestants had those books removed. Also I used to think the KJV was best till I learned that King James was a Free Mason. :eek: Why read a Bible translated by a devil worshipper? 🤷 So I now stick to the Catholic bibles. 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top