The King James Version

And now, a word about the original topic, the King James Version:

I think it's a good translation, and it's one of many that I use. I don't think it's the best translation, just a good one, though I acknowledge its excellent literary qualities. For general use, my favorite is the ESV, which I think strikes a nearly ideal balance between sound scholarship in the formal-equivalent tradition, readable and elegant modern English, and as much as possible of the majesty of the KJV.

I have no quarrel with anyone who prefers any sound translation, including the KJV. But I do object to the KJVO movement, which attacks all translations other than the KJV. IMHO, it's the original Hebrew and Greek manuscripts that are divinely inspired, not any particular English translation. So the KJVO folks, in attacking every other translation as invalid, corrupt or not the true Word of God, are fighting against God's Word, and that is Not Good.

Thankfully, I know from previous discussions that most CF Fundamentalists are not KJVO.

__________________

I remember when it used to be talked about all the time; that's when there was quite a number of KJVO people on the site. As a legitimate personal conviction or choice, I respect it. But when it comes down to competing about how "holy" one is for having such a conviction (and others like it), there's something a little disturbing about that.

__________________
"Oh, give thanks to the Lord, for He is good! For His mercy endures forever." -- Psalm 136:1

As they say, "If the King James Version was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for me!"

I think KJV-Onlyism is hilarious. Okay, it's a popular translation, it's familiar to many people and it's not under copyright. But divinely inspired? Somehow it's different than all translations before and after it? God apparently prefers English now? I think that is the most bizarre.

I had a conversation with someone where I was quoting passage after passage in defense of various Catholic doctrines -- the individual would jump from topic to topic without just discussing one. After a bit, she had a thought -- she said she wouldn't believe those verses I just posted because they were from a Catholic Bible. I was quoting from the Douay-Rheims translation, which was published from 1582-1610 and then revised by Bp. Challoner in 1749-1750. So it carries with it the Elizabethan English similar to the KJV (updated with standardized spellings, of course, just like the KJV). Bp. Challoner used the KJV extensively in his revision of the D-R, checking it against original sources (indeed, it is sometimes criticized for using a Protestant Bible). I like it because it is not a modern translation, which are often awkward and fuzzy, and because it is very similar to the King James I was familiar with as a Protestant.

How about a Bible is just a Bible? They are all faulty. Jerome's Vulgate (405) was declared to not be faulty in any matters relating to faith or morals (this is not to say that his translation was inerrant). However, it has been replaced in the Catholic world with the Nova Vulgata as the standard. We are constantly learning more and more about Bible translation and there are many different texts to work from. To suggest that one translation is directly inspired by God, especially one as faulty as the King James Version, is bibliolatry and a distraction.

During my teenage years, after leaving the Fundamentalist (mixed with conservative Evangelical) movement that I was raised in, I had abandoned Christianity altogether. However, I would often find in discussions with Christians that I knew the Bible far better than they did. Many people say they believe in the Bible as the Word of God, but they don't read it. Catholics, Orthodox, Anglicans and other liturgical denominations have the Bible read to them at every service/Mass/Divine Liturgy (daily as well as Sundays). That is to say, they cover most of the Bible in a couple years because it is all scheduled instead of a pastor picking on the same verses over and over. When I became an Anglican (traditional Anglo-Catholic style), I was introduced to a more Catholic understanding of Scripture and Church teaching. Now as a Catholic in the process of converting (I'm in Catechism/RCIA classes now), I am finding an even richer reading of the Bible. It is important to understand how people have read those verses for thousands of years rather than just how it looks to you at first glance in the 21st century. If you see where Jesus or Paul quotes the Old Testament, you would see so many people say "that was out of context!" or "how did you get that from that?" This is because they were inspired to say what they said, their eyes were open to the true meanings that the Holy Spirit had laid down in the Scripture of ages past.

I don't believe we were ever meant to see the Bible as inspired word-for-word because we don't have the original texts, certainly not for the Old Testament (though the New Testament quotes the Septuagint so we could believe that it is a good copy), the Gospels or the Epistles and Revelation -- we don't have the original of any of it! Some people have claimed that God finally decided to fix this situation in 1611 with the publication of the King James Bible. So for 1550 years (plus prior to the advent of Christ), people lived without reliable Scripture? This is why KJVO is ridiculous. It is very similar to the claim by the Mormons, the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Muslims that the Scriptures had been corrupted and God sent a new copy down for people to take better care of this time.

It is not enough to call yourself a "Bible-believing Christian" (are there Christians who don't believe the Bible?), read and know the Bible, read the Church Fathers, understand what is being said and most importantly, do it.

I think the KJV-only argument is one of the ones that is dividing the Church against itself at a time when we need to be more and more united against the threats that are facing Christians. We are divided to the point of hatred against our brothers who DARE to use a different translation, and this is something we are warned about in 1 John 2:11. In my mind, determining whether or not someone is saved based on the Bible they choose to use is as ridiculous as determining whether or not someone is saved based on if they speak in tounges. I personally am an adherent to the KJV. I personally have never had too much of a problem reading and understanding Elizabethan English (although I do need a dictionary from time to time). I do not believe the KJV was "double-inspired", I simply believe it to be the most perfectly preserved version of the Bible for the English language. I believe the original Greek manuscripts to be the inspired works, and every copy that is made after that falls under God's promise of Preservation of His Word. I believe that the Textus Receptus is the best Greek text we have available to us at this time. I use the KJV when I read the Bible, study the Bible, teach my classes the Bible, and when the opportunity comes to witness and preach, I use the KJV.Now that said, I do not believe that ONLY translations descended from the TR are the Word of God. I was horrified this week to hear about a Baptist church in N.C. holding a Bible burning bonfire for all the "heretical" translations of the Scriptures. The Word is still the Word. I believe that there some portions of the Critical Text descended translations that are in error, but we have no way to prove that, short of Heaven. It could very well be that I am in error. The power of God to speak through His Word will work regardless of what translation it comes from.

Quite frankly I'd like to compare the KJV onlyism to the Roman Catholic Church in mediaeval times which also was determined to stick to an aging Bible version. To them it was the Latin edition of the Bible to the KJV onlyists it's the King James Version. (BTW I'm not a fundamentalist though I'm an Evangelical but visiting).

With all due respect, the comparison between the RCC prior to and just after the beginning of the Reformation and the reliance of many on the KJV is not entirely similar. There are sections of the KJV-Only crowd who are extremely vociferous, argumentative, and abusive of others in the defense of their opinions, and have even gone so far as to declare non-KJV versions to be heretical, uninspired, etc etc etc. However, unlike the RCC's Bible in the period you were discussing, the KJV is in a language that the people CAN understand. The common people in and around the Reformation did not speak or read Latin, and thus needed the Church to read and explain the Scripture. Even the nobles, who often knew how to SPEAK Latin, couldn't READ Latin.

The KJV although it does use a somewhat archaic mode of English, still uses Modern English (albiet Early Modern rather than the current Late Modern). The grammar is mostly identical to modern grammar, and the words used are largely the same. Some words have slightly different meanings. But if the lay English-speaking person, with no experience in Bibliology, foreign languages, or literature were to sit down and to try to read the KJV, he could do it, AND could understand what it was saying.

Originally Posted by PilgrimToChrist

<snip>

Okay, it's a popular translation, it's familiar to many people and it's not under copyright.

<snip>

Actually that's often assumed these days, but in fact it is copyrighted (in Britain, if I remember correctly). Most of the world has just stopped bothering to recognizing it.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I'm not of course saying that it's an exact same parallel, but what I am saying is that the general attitude and motivation is similar.

For some of the people that gain a bunch of attention in the KJV only movement (like those folks in N.C. who are burning non-KJV Bibles and other literature on Halloween), I would definitely agree with you. There are folks out there who will argue that if you arn't saved under the KJV, then you arn't really saved. Or that if you are reading another translation, you're guilty of heresy. They do exist.

However, the entire KJV movement is NOT made up of Ruckman-ites who throw ad-homs around at brothers and sisters and make the debate worse by raising hackles and ignoring the advice of the Scriptures of how to frame debates. There are many who believe (as I do) that the KJV is the most perfectly preserved version of the Scripture out there without going to such extremes. Their motivation is not the suppression of individual faith/beliefs, forcing Christians to read a Bible they don't understand, or restricting the understanding of the Scripture to an educated elite.

Thank you; sorry to misunderstand I thought you were a KJV Onlyist not someone who prefers KJV.