Kjv?

[Zealous Zeth]

What are the non-English speaking peoples of the world to do?! Must we learn 17th century British English to have access to the one true version of the Bible?

And isn't this KJV-thing a part of protestant tradition? Weren't you supposed to believe in Sola Scriptua?

[desmalia]

Well from the tone of your post, I can't help but think perhaps this thread should have been started in the "debate" section instead of the "ask" section...

Are you asking about KJV-Onlyism?
If so, I think you'll find there are few who subscribe to it around here.

[DeaconDean]

What are the non-English speaking peoples of the world to do?! Must we learn 17th century British English to have access to the one true version of the Bible?

And isn't this KJV-thing a part of protestant tradition? Weren't you supposed to believe in Sola Scriptua?

A lot of people just happen to think that the KJV was one of the most beautifully written versions ever.

There used to be a time when English Lierature was taught in school. But that time is almost over. And because English Lit. was taught, Shakespheare was taught, and people were exposed to the "Kings English."

But that time is just about over. People complain about its language, "its too hard" "its outdated" its to difficult to understand."

And then "newer" versions are put out which results in watered down versions of the truth, or complete verses left out.

And here you are complaining about the KJV.

Which version of the Catholic bible do you carry?

Do you carry around the Latin Vulgate?

Do you carry around the LXX?

The Catholic Confraternity Version?

The Ignatius Bible?

The Catholic Bible?

The Douay-Rhiems Bible?

Now me personally, I was raised on the KJV. From the time I was six years old up, that is the version I have known, been taught from, and the version I use. Its not that hard of a language to undestand.

But when you consider the language that the Bible was originally written in, Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic, then the old Kings English isn't that bad after all.

If you really want a blessing from God, quit studying in the conventional language. Study the Bible in the language it was written in. My knowledge of the New Testament has increased a hundred fold since I began to study in the Greek.

Yes I love my KJV bible. I love the Greek also. But if the KJV isn't you bag because of the "language," then there are plenty of other versions out there.

And if you think the KJV is bad, or hard to read now because of the language, try looking up on the internet the Geneva Bible, or the Gutenburg Bible and tell me which one of the three would you rather read.

Yes the KJV has its faults. BUt its all in what you are raised on, and what you are used to.

And a litle fact, here on the forums, the amount of users here that actually use the KJV are in the minority. Its just that we are the most out-spoken about it.

God Bless

Till all are one.

[BigNorsk]

Many peoples in the world have received their bible through translations of the King James, in more than a few languages, the only bible available is a translation of the King James.

The reason for that is that Protestants have been serious about getting the Bible to everyone in the world. And the number of people who know English and can translate into one of the many languages are relatively common. People who understand Hebrew and Aramaic and Greek and the many small languages of the world are very few.

Plus working from the King James in most of the world, copyright is not an issue.

So the King James has been a valuable tool to bring people the Bible in their own language.

Of course a translation from the originals would be preferable, but just in many cases has not been possible.

If you are not familiar with Fundamentalism, we use a recognized definition for this Forum. see: http://christianforums.com/t6397447-guidelines-for-the-fundamentalist-forum.html

If you think all fundamentalists are King James only, you are dealing with us from the standpoint of misunderstanding, probably a stereotype akin to racism. Another good resource to understand would be the Chicago statement on Biblical Inerrancy.

http://www.bible-researcher.com/chicago1.html

And the Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermaneutics.

http://www.bible-researcher.com/chicago2.html

They would give you a better understanding of both Fundamentalism and sola Scriptura.

Sometimes you hear of Fundamentalism in reference to people who primarily focus on very narrow issues, that's not really fundamentalism per se, maybe the people are fundamentalists, maybe they just say they are, maybe someone else says they are. Often there is not way to know from what is reported.

As a bit of Catholic History, did you know that the Challoner revision of the Duoay Rheims translations abandoned the rigid adherance to the Vulgate and is probably about 20% King James and it was adopted and used by the Roman Catholic Church for a long time. Matter of fact the original Douay Rheims is relatively hard to get though the Douay Rheims only adherents in the Catholic Church are pushing for people to use it. I wouldn't mind a copy myself since it is so rigid in following the Vulgate it really helps understand the Latin, but it's really not English in some passages. Just a jumble of English words.

Anyway, welcome to our forum if you have other questions please do ask, it doesn't sound like where you've been getting your ideas is trustworthy, and it's better to ask and avoid misunderstandings.

Marv

[Zealous Zeth]

Which version of the Catholic bible do you carry?

The Latin Vulgate, the Douay-Rheims, RSV (thanks to a liberal baptist archive) and the one I use most: the Catholic Revised Version of the 2000 bible. (in Swedish) I'm not to found of the last, as the unrevised version was made by the (social-democratic) Swedish Department of Education and it feels like making soup of rotten beetroots. :|

If I would cite the bible here, my choose would be the Douay-Rheims as it looks like the more conservative catholics are using it.

If you really want a blessing from God, quit studying in the conventional language. Study the Bible in the language it was written in. My knowledge of the New Testament has increased a hundred fold since I began to study in the Greek. I'm thinking of that. I have already begun with Latin. :)

Yes I love my KJV bible. I love the Greek also. But if the KJV isn't you bag because of the "language," then there are plenty of other versions out there. Thing is, when I hear things like "The only thing I don't like about them is they sell foreign language versions of the KJB. I don't think that's right. We know the only true translation is the 1600's version in English. It's too risky for anybody to translate that into other languages. Mistakes can creep in... and that can lead to heresy. True Christians should only read English." and "If your original Hebrew disagrees with my original King James --- your original Hebrew is wrong. If your original Hebrew agrees with my original King James, your original Hebrew is right." (both from FSTDT*) I begin to worry about KJO:ers conception of the world.

(*I'm not a friend of FSTDT, I have been ridiculed by those idiots four times now)

If you think all fundamentalists are King James only, you are dealing with us from the standpoint of misunderstanding, probably a stereotype akin to racism. Another good resource to understand would be the Chicago statement on Biblical Inerrancy. Thanks for the links. :) I just didn't know where to ask.

As a bit of Catholic History, did you know that the Challoner revision of the Duoay Rheims translations abandoned the rigid adherance to the Vulgate and is probably about 20% King James and it was adopted and used by the Roman Catholic Church for a long time. Yes, and I have tried to read the original, unrevised version. Though old English is a fair challenge for me, that was almost unreadable, especially the Psalms.

Anyway, welcome to our forum if you have other questions please do ask, it doesn't sound like where you've been getting your ideas is trustworthy, and it's better to ask and avoid misunderstandings. Thank you and yes, I suppose FSTDT isn't a trustfully source. (considering that they mistook me for a fundamentalist)

:crossrc:

[BigNorsk]

I don't normally carry a Catholic Bible, though I have an NAB, I have the Vulgate, and Douay Rheims (Challoner) in electronic versions.

You could get them too, e-sword at www.e-sword.net (http://www.e-sword.net) is a program that asks donations but does not charge except for those resources others charge for. So the program, and many of the older translations and resources are free, there is even I think two Swedish versions.

It can actually be a language study aid because you can compare two versions and it will have the verses side by side.

I was hoping to find an original DRB just for that, it is so rigid in following the Vulgate that it's actually quite an aid in learning Latin.

You could even get the text of the 1611 KJV. And it is indeed the original "He" bible text, not the second "she" bible. That comes from a mistake in I think it's Ruth where she is referred to as he in the original.

Anyway, then we get into the error of thinking a translation is perfect or better than the sources. That's happened historically over and over.

It was and in some places still is big with the Septuagint, certainly was prominent in Vulgate history, and both the KJV and the DRB have very vocal advocates today. I know Luther's Bible had people who believed like that, probably still do and I have to believe it happened in others too.

And it's of more than passing interest. Those beliefs are actually where the canon of the Orthodox and Catholic churches come from, they ended up just thinking everything was fully authoritative. One thing you can notice is their canons don't actually quite agree, the Orthodox having more.

The strangest part of that was that the Latin Vulgate, in it's prefaces actually said which books were authoritative and which were aporcryphal even using the word apocrypha for the intertestimental books. But the prefaces were never read in church, many never read the bible outside church and many used lectionaries that split the bible into the daily readings so they did not have the prefaces. Over time the unlearned lost the distinction. The standard interpretive textbook used by the Roman Catholic church for hundreds of years, the Glossa ordinaria, even talked of the many unlearned who did not know the difference.

So anyway, what you actually see with the Reformation is that their bibles actually agreed with the historical usages. They didn't remove anything, but the apocryphal books were set in a different section. They continued to use them in church. Lutherans, Anglicans and a couple other groups continue to use them in daily readings to this day. They weren't removed until Bible societies in the 1800's quit including them to reduce the cost of printing bibles.

Enough for now.

Marv

[NewGuy101]

I am netbible (http://net.bible.org/home.php) onlyism.


:D

[desmalia]

Thing is, when I hear things like "The only thing I don't like about them is they sell foreign language versions of the KJB. I don't think that's right. We know the only true translation is the 1600's version in English. It's too risky for anybody to translate that into other languages. Mistakes can creep in... and that can lead to heresy. True Christians should only read English." and "If your original Hebrew disagrees with my original King James --- your original Hebrew is wrong. If your original Hebrew agrees with my original King James, your original Hebrew is right." (both from FSTDT*) I begin to worry about KJO:ers conception of the world.

(*I'm not a friend of FSTDT, I have been ridiculed by those idiots four times now)
Ah, yes I've seen that quote on that website. I don't know the context in which it was said. The person that was quoted used to post in the fundie section regularly, but hasn't been around much lately. Perhaps if you would like some clarification you may want to pm him and invite him to this thread.

I will tell you though, that while I respect and appreciate this brother, I do very much disagree with his reasoning on this particular subject.

OH, and yes, you are correct about that website. It's been known to quote atheists and many other non-Christians. In fact I'd say probably the majority of posts there are not actually from fundies at all. Yes, some are. And of those, many are taken out of the context of the thread so they may appear to be soemthing they are not. The site seems to use a tabloid trash kind of mentality. If they can't find anything hypocritical enough to suit their needs, they basically make it up. So while it can be mildly amusing to read at times, I'd take it with a huge grain of salt.

[cubanito]

some time ago there was a a HUGE ruckus on this site about the KJV. There were so many threads posted and they went on for so long....

It is true that there are some Fundys that have the idea that the KJV is the only lrgitimate Bible. I can't fairly represent the view, since I consider that view absurd. How many Fundys hold to KJV-only I don't know, but on this site there used to be more, and I am sorry they left. I think they left mainly when the Erwin/new tone thing happened and not so much over the KJV only issue, but I could be wrong.

Now, I have NO PROBLEM w those who LIKE the KJV, or even think that it is the BEST version out there. While it is not my view (I'm an NASB fan) I think this is very much a matter of opinion. Personally I FAR prefer the KJV to the NIV and other "dynamic equilibrium" versions. But again, this is sort of in the realm of opinion.

The KJV is a grand old dame, and I can sympathize with those in whose heart it holds a warm and honored place. So long as it does not get viewed as replacing the authority of the original autographs, none of which, BTW are in Latin, I am just fine w it.

JR

[WannaWitness]

I like the KJV, but I also feel that NKJV is good, too.

[twistedsketch]

What are the non-English speaking peoples of the world to do?! Must we learn 17th century British English to have access to the one true version of the Bible?

And isn't this KJV-thing a part of protestant tradition? Weren't you supposed to believe in Sola Scriptua?
I'm not a KJV-Onlyist, but to the credit of this belief system, I have run into many KJV-Onlyists and only one who takes it to the extreme you are presupposing. That man had problems. Many KJV-"onlyists" will also speak well of the Geneva Bible, and translations to other languages based off it and the KJV.

[Artificial Intelligence]

What are the non-English speaking peoples of the world to do?! Must we learn 17th century British English to have access to the one true version of the Bible?Hmm? You can always learn Latin, Greek etc and translate the early manuscripts we have. Lots of people actually do that, or like the rest of us that use Strong’s mostly. Lots of problems with KJV, but I still like it, yet I need to keep it in check since it is a translation just the same as others, though some others more poorly translated. I use quite a few translations (have about 35), and also have stuff from the original languages. And isn't this KJV-thing a part of protestant tradition? Tradition? The only tradition I recognize comes from the bible.Weren't you supposed to believe in Sola Scriptua?Yep, Sola Scriptura! "by scripture alone" the assertion that the Bible as God's written word is self-authenticating, clear (perspicuous) to the rational reader, its own interpreter ("Scripture interprets Scripture"), and sufficient of itself to be the final authority of Christian doctrine.

Your question is?

[edb19]

If I had a nickel for every "KJVO" discussion thread on CF I could probably (at the very least) go out to dinner at an extremely nice restaurant. Maybe 2 or 3 dinners.

I remember chatting with my pastor once about Bible translations. He pointed out that vulgate and vulgar are from the same root word. Two of the definitions of vulgar are:
current; popular; common: a vulgar success; vulgar beliefs

spoken by, or being in the language spoken by, the people generally; vernacular: vulgar tongue.

His point - we want Scripture to be in the common language - the language read and spoken by the people. Nothing against the King James Version - but it no longer falls in this category.

[CGL]

If there was only one true Bible, would it not be in Hebrew?