Why the King James Bible is Still the Best and Most Accurate

[The Liturgist]

To what is this referring? Or should I say "forsooth, I knoweth not to where this talk goeth?

Your command of ecclesial English is impressive. I wish we could come to a concord, that whereas the KJVO movement is in error, the use of traditional language Bibles is acceptable for aesthetic reasons.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

The knack some Evangelicals (for it seems to be mostly they) have for pinning onto Rome whatever they especially disapprove of, is impressive.

James Strong may not have been a Catholic, but you can actually see at Wikipedia that James Strong actually worked on the RV (ASV) with Westcott and Hort.

James Strong (theologian) - Wikipedia

It’s a known fact that Westcott and Hort favored Catholicism.

Hort:

"...at the same time in language stating that we maintain 'Baptismal Regeneration' as the most important of doctrines ... the pure 'Romish' view seems to me nearer, and more likely to lead to, the truth than the Evangelical." ~ Hort.

Westcott:

Another Roman Catholic doctrine is the adoration of Mary. Here also Dr. Westcott did not let the Roman Catholic Church down, as he reveals in a letter to his fiancee Sarah Louisa Whittard.

"After leaving the monastery, we shaped our course to a little oratory which we discovered on the summit of a neighboring hill ... Fortunately we found the door open. It is very small, with one kneeling-place, and behind a screen was a 'Pieta' the size of life (i.e., a Virgin and dead Christ) ... Had I been alone, I could have knelt there for hours."149​

This condition is also indicated by his son, Arthur, in describing Westcott's reaction to the painting "The Sistine Madonna:"

"It is smaller than I expected, and the colouring is less rich, but in expression it is perfect. The face of the virgin is unspeakably beautiful. I looked till the lip seemed to tremble with intensity of feeling - of feeling simply, for it would be impossible to say whether it be awe of joy or hope - humanity shrinking before the divine, or swelling with its conscious possession. It is enough that there is deep, intensely deep, emotion such as the mother of the Lord may have had."150​

The intensity of Westcott's admiration for Christ's mother is best revealed by his desire to change his fiancee's name to "Mary" as Arthur explains: "My mother, whose name was Sarah Louisa Whittard, was the eldest of three sisters. She afterwards, at the time of her confirmation at my father's request, took the name of Mary in addition."151

Source:
Gipp’s Understandable History of the Bible.

Westcott and Hort used two manuscripts to create their Greek New Testament Translation (i.e. the Critical Text). They based their work on two manuscripts. One manuscript was found in a Catholic vault (Hence, why it is called the Vaticanus), and the found another manuscript in an Orthodox monastery.

Today: The Nestle and Aland based their work upon Westcott and Hort’s work along with other manuscripts. Aland was into Catholicism and even met the pope (Note: There are picture of this). The 27th edition of Nestle and Aland Critical Text has it clearly written in it that the work was under the direct supervision of the Vatican. Catholics at one time had forbidden the King James Bible in their official writings. All Modern Bibles are influenced by Rome. FACT. If you are into Catholicism, then there is no need to be concerned about what I write here, but if you are not in favor of Catholicism, then this should concern you.

 

[The Liturgist]

All Modern Bibles are influenced by Rome.

So is the KJV. FACT. The Vulgate remained in use among Anglican theologians, and the basic plan of both the Luther Bible and the KJV, of using the Hebrew and Aramaic text for the Old Testament and the Greek for the new, and eschewing the Septuagint except for the Deuterocanon, was also St. Jerome’s plan, and the acceptance of the 27 book Athanasian canon of New Testament scriptures promulgated in Paschal Epistle #39 by St. Athanasius in 367 was greatly bolstered by Pope Gelasius adopting it in the Decretum Gelasianium. If Gelasius had not done that, there is a good chance Revelations would not be considered scripture today.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

So is the KJV. FACT. The Vulgate remained in use among Anglican theologians, and the basic plan of both the Luther Bible and the KJV, of using the Hebrew and Aramaic text for the Old Testament and the Greek for the new, and eschewing the Septuagint except for the Deuterocanon, was also St. Jerome’s plan, and the acceptance of the 27 book Athanasian canon of New Testament scriptures promulgated in Paschal Epistle #39 by St. Athanasius in 367 was greatly bolstered by Pope Gelasius adopting it in the Decretum Gelasianium. If Gelasius had not done that, there is a good chance Revelations would not be considered scripture today.

Catholics used to burn people for just possessing the Scriptures.

If you knew anything about the history of the KJB, you would know that the Catholics tried to kill King James and stop the translation of the King James Bible with a super bomb. Try watching the documentary called, The KJB: The Book that Changed the World starring “John Rhys-Davies.”

KJB: The Book That Changed the World:

Trailer:

Watch Kjb - The Book That Changed The World | Prime Video

Riots broke out here in America over their desire of having the Catholic version of the Bible in public schools. One took place in 1844 in Philadelphia. Others took place at a later date in Cincinnati, Ohio.

What Bible were Catholics up against being used in school?

The King James Bible.

In 1852, the King James Bible was ruled in court fit for use in public schools since it was common to all Christians.

It wasn't until 1872 that the state of Ohio banned mandatory Bible reading in public schools. However, the United States Supreme Court did not ban the practice of reading the bible in public schools on a national level until 1962.

In addition, here is a snapshot from an older Roman Catholic source of forbidden works. Notice that the King James Bible is on the list of forbidden books.

Source:
Undeniable Proof the ESV, NIV, NASB, Holman Standard, NET, Jehovah Witness NWT etc. are the new "Vatican Versions" by: Another King James Bible Believer

Note: I am aware this mention of forbidden works put out forth in a publication by the Catholic church is an older version, and they have updated it. But the point here is that at one time, they considered the KJB to be a forbidden book.

Very interesting.

Oh, and yes, I know about Erasmus, but he was not exactly in agreement with many Catholic doctrines, and he was later rejected by the Catholic church and he died among his Protestant friends.

To learn more about Erasmus, check out this article here.

So in conclusion:

Clearly the Catholic Church hated the King James Bible and they did not have anything to do with it. So no. It is not a fact that they had anything to do with the KJB.

 

[The Liturgist]

But where is your perfect Bible that you can hold in your hands?

The Orthodox Study Bible I am content with, personally, and also the Challoner Douai-Rheims, except for the annoying inline doctrinal notes. The NRSV with Apocrypha is also good, and if I could find an RSV with Apocrypha in ebook form, I think I would go with that.

One could also get a very good Bible by taking a KJV, Douai-Rheims or,RSV New Testament and attaching it to the Lancelot-Brenton Septuagint.

I read a post on this site suggesting using the Murdock translation of the Peshitta New Testament with the Lancelot Brenton LXX (the author misattributed it to Lancelot Andrewes), which would be a great idea, except Murdock in translating the Aramaic as literally as possible uses non-standard terminology, so St. Peter is referred to as Cephas, and the Apostles as Legates. However I suppose a word replace in Word, or in my preferred text editor vim (the command %s/Cephas/Peter/g , repeated for s/legate/apostle and a few other cases would fix it) and that could work out nicely, because for the most part, Murdock is easier to read than the KJV.

There is also the Etheridge Bible, but it uses Syriac words for God and Syriac personal names extensively, so the Synoptics are Mattai, Markos, and Lukos, and also his spelling of God makes no sense to me: he writes it as Aloha, which, Hawaiian jokes aside, is neither the Eastern (Alaha) nor the Western (Aloho) phonology.

I find the second edition of the NIV to have very elegant prose, and I wish Zondervan had translated the Deuterocanonicals for it rather than ruining it with gender neutral pronouns and other modifications in the service of liberal theology. And they won’t even sell you an eBook or hardcopy of the Second Edition, which many people, including many conservatives and conservative denominations, like the Nazarenes, where the NIV was nicknamed the Nazarene International Version, really loved.

That said, as bad as the new NIV is, it could be worse, and I loved hearing David Suchet read the Gospel According to Mark at St. Paul’s.

 

[The Liturgist]

Catholics used to burn people for just possessing the Scriptures.

That is almost completely false. The Inquisition targeted Gnostics, and the Spanish Inquisition targeted conversos (people who had converted from Islam or Judaism when Spain conquered Granada in 1492, who were suspected of secretly practicing Islam or Judaism). The only sacred scriptures that might get you killed by Torquemada were Torah Scrolls of the sort used in Hebrew liturgy, and other Hebraic scriptures, which would suggest you were secretly practicing Judaism. Likewise, a Quran would be dangerous to own. This was still a genocidal outrage, but the total number of people killed in the Spanish Inquisition was at most 3,000 (I did the math once to determine which was worse, the Spanish Empire or the Aztec Empire, and the Aztec Empire, the dafa shows, was a bloodthirsty regime worse in its systematic brutality than even Nazi Germany, and Hernan Cortes, although his motives were financially driven, is still a hero for taking it out; in addition, the high mortality from syphillis in Mexico in the 16th century was an accident, albeit one resulting from licentious or rapacious conduct by Spanish merchants and soldiers, and not biological warfare, which in that era had only been waged by the Mongolians throwing plague victims over the walls of besieged Russian cities.

 

[BeingThere]

The problem is that you did not watch the whole video. You did not watch all of Bridge to Babylon, either (with an open mind). While Strong appeared to have made a Concordance that favors the Textus Receptus, James Strong also worked on the English Revised Version (a.k.a. ASV) with Westcott and Hort involving the Critical Text. Westcott and Hort were known heretics in regards to the faith. They kept their beliefs secrets during the time they created the Critical Text and in promoting it because they did not want anyone to reject their Critical Text agenda (Which led to many Modern Bibles today).

Westcott and Hort's views are not heretical. Anyone who desires to understand more about Genesis than a literal 6-day creation is not heretical, but has an open mind to a nuanced, rich Bible. Wisdom cannot be boiled down to your pet literalism doctrine.

Veneration for the virgin Mary is not heretical, it is superfluous, so long as she is not worshipped as a god. Nevertheless, meaningless toward your argument. Again, explain how the modern Bibles are corrupt. I will go through your list, if you like, but they are all similarly erroneous as Revelation 13:1 and II Peter.

Catholics used to burn people for just possessing the Scriptures.

If you knew anything about the history of the KJB, you would know that the Catholics tried to kill King James and stop the translation of the King James Bible with a super bomb. Try watching the documentary called, The KJB: The Book that Changed the World starring “John Rhys-Davies.”

KJB: The Book That Changed the World:

Trailer:

Watch Kjb - The Book That Changed The World | Prime Video

Riots broke out here in America over their desire of having the Catholic version of the Bible in public schools. One took place in 1844 in Philadelphia. Others took place at a later date in Cincinnati, Ohio.

What Bible were Catholics up against being used in school?

The King James Bible.

In 1852, the King James Bible was ruled in court fit for use in public schools since it was common to all Christians.

It wasn't until 1872 that the state of Ohio banned mandatory Bible reading in public schools. However, the United States Supreme Court did not ban the practice of reading the bible in public schools on a national level until 1962.

In addition, here is a snapshot from an older Roman Catholic source of forbidden works. Notice that the King James Bible is on the list of forbidden books.

Source:
Undeniable Proof the ESV, NIV, NASB, Holman Standard, NET, Jehovah Witness NWT etc. are the new "Vatican Versions" by: Another King James Bible Believer

Note: I am aware this mention of forbidden works put out forth in a publication by the Catholic church is an older version, and they have updated it. But the point here is that at one time, they considered the KJB to be a forbidden book.

Very interesting.

Oh, and yes, I know about Erasmus, but he was not exactly in agreement with many Catholic doctrines, and he was later rejected by the Catholic church and he died among his Protestant friends.

To learn more about Erasmus, check out this article here.

So in conclusion:

Clearly the Catholic Church hated the King James Bible and they did not have anything to do with it. So no. It is not a fact that they had anything to do with the KJB.

There is no need to introduce conspiracy theory into this discussion about facts. It is all "very interesting" indeed, but does not lay a good foundation for the extreme claim you and KJB-only people are leveling against the sincere and thorough attempt to translate the works of the Bible in today's English.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

That is almost completely false. The Inquisition targeted Gnostics, and the Spanish Inquisition targeted conversos (people who had converted from Islam or Judaism when Spain conquered Granada in 1492, who were suspected of secretly practicing Islam or Judaism). The only sacred scriptures that might get you killed by Torquemada were Torah Scrolls of the sort used in Hebrew liturgy, and other Hebraic scriptures, which would suggest you were secretly practicing Judaism. Likewise, a Quran would be dangerous to own. This was still a genocidal outrage, but the total number of people killed in the Spanish Inquisition was at most 3,000 (I did the math once to determine which was worse, the Spanish Empire or the Aztec Empire, and the Aztec Empire, the dafa shows, was a bloodthirsty regime worse in its systematic brutality than even Nazi Germany, and Hernan Cortes, although his motives were financially driven, is still a hero for taking it out; in addition, the high mortality from syphillis in Mexico in the 16th century was an accident, albeit one resulting from licentious or rapacious conduct by Spanish merchants and soldiers, and not biological warfare, which in that era had only been waged by the Mongolians throwing plague victims over the walls of besieged Russian cities.

Actually, the Catholic church forbidden the regular people from reading or studying the Holy Bible on their own. This rule within the Catholic church only increased into the Middle Ages and after, which also included the restriction on a person translating the Holy Scriptures into their native tongue. This later turned out to having them become burned if they possessed the Scriptures.

Proof?

Decree of the Council of Toulouse (1229 C.E.): "We prohibit also that the laity should be permitted to have the books of the Old or New Testament; but we most strictly forbid their having any translation of these books."

Ruling of the Council of Tarragona of 1234 C.E.: "No one may possess the books of the Old and New Testaments in the Romance language, and if anyone possesses them he must turn them over to the local bishop within eight days after promulgation of this decree, so that they may be burned..."

Proclamations at the Ecumenical Council of Constance in 1415 C.E.: Oxford professor, and theologian John Wycliffe, was the first (1380 C.E.) to translate the New Testament into English to "...helpeth Christian men to study the Gospel in that tongue in which they know best Christ's sentence." For this "heresy" Wycliffe was posthumously condemned by Arundel, the archbishop of Canterbury. By the Council's decree "Wycliffe's bones were exhumed and publicly burned and the ashes were thrown into the Swift River."

Fate of William Tyndale in 1536 C.E.: William Tyndale was burned at the stake for translating the Bible into English. According to Tyndale, the Catholic church forbid owning or reading the Bible to control and restrict the teachings and to enhance their own power and importance.

 

[The Liturgist]

Catholics used to burn people for just possessing the Scriptures.

If you knew anything about the history of the KJB, you would know that the Catholics tried to kill King James and stop the translation of the King James Bible with a super bomb. Try watching the documentary called, The KJB: The Book that Changed the World starring “John Rhys-Davies.”

KJB: The Book That Changed the World:

Trailer:

Watch Kjb - The Book That Changed The World | Prime Video

Riots broke out here in America over their desire of having the Catholic version of the Bible in public schools. One took place in 1844 in Philadelphia. Others took place at a later date in Cincinnati, Ohio.

What Bible were Catholics up against being used in school?

The King James Bible.

In 1852, the King James Bible was ruled in court fit for use in public schools since it was common to all Christians.

It wasn't until 1872 that the state of Ohio banned mandatory Bible reading in public schools. However, the United States Supreme Court did not ban the practice of reading the bible in public schools on a national level until 1962.

In addition, here is a snapshot from an older Roman Catholic source of forbidden works. Notice that the King James Bible is on the list of forbidden books.

Source:
Undeniable Proof the ESV, NIV, NASB, Holman Standard, NET, Jehovah Witness NWT etc. are the new "Vatican Versions" by: Another King James Bible Believer

Note: I am aware this mention of forbidden works put out forth in a publication by the Catholic church is an older version, and they have updated it. But the point here is that at one time, they considered the KJB to be a forbidden book.

Very interesting.

Oh, and yes, I know about Erasmus, but he was not exactly in agreement with many Catholic doctrines, and he was later rejected by the Catholic church and he died among his Protestant friends.

To learn more about Erasmus, check out this article here.

So in conclusion:

Clearly the Catholic Church hated the King James Bible and they did not have anything to do with it. So no. It is not a fact that they had anything to do with the KJB.

My point was the Vulgate and St. Jerome influenced the Bible, and you are saying Catholic. I am a Protestant, but like all Christians, a member of the Catholic Church, although I am not Roman Catholic or in communion with Pope Francis. St. Jerome was a member of the early Roman Catholic Church, before it entered into a corrupt period following the schism with the Eastern Orthodox.

It has since improved greatly from the low point it reached under Popes Alexander VI, Julius II and Leo X.

I don’t blame Roman Catholics for wanting the Douai Rheims read to Catholic children instead of the KJV. It was a violation of their rights. The Supreme Court should instead of banning the reading of the Bible required the government subsidize church run parochial schools for people who did not want to use a secular school, and provide chaplains for members of different faiths in the secular schools.

 

[The Liturgist]

Veneration for the virgin Mary is not heretical, it is superfluous,

I would argue, and so would Martin Luther, who prayed what @MarkRohfrietsch has convinced me is the older Western form of the Ave Maria (lacking the intercessory prayer) that the veneration of the Theotokos is extremely beneficial, because she did give birth to God.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Westcott and Hort's views are not heretical. Anyone who desires to understand more about Genesis than a literal 6-day creation is not heretical, but has an open mind to a nuanced, rich Bible. Wisdom cannot be boiled down to your pet literalism doctrine.

Veneration for the virgin Mary is not heretical, it is superfluous, so long as she is not worshipped as a god. Nevertheless, meaningless toward your argument. Again, explain how the modern Bibles are corrupt. I will go through your list, if you like, but they are all similarly erroneous as Revelation 13:1 and II Peter.

There is no need to introduce conspiracy theory into this discussion about facts. It is all "very interesting" indeed, but does not lay a good foundation for the extreme claim you and KJB-only people are leveling against the sincere and thorough attempt to translate the works of the Bible in today's English.

And that’s my cue to say goodbye to you on discussing this topic with you, my friend.

For our beliefs are too extremely divergent to discuss here.

So may…

 

[Bible Highlighter]

My point was the Vulgate and St. Jerome influenced the Bible, and you are saying Catholic. I am a Protestant, but like all Christians, a member of the Catholic Church, although I am not Roman Catholic or in communion with Pope Francis. St. Jerome was a member of the early Roman Catholic Church, before it entered into a corrupt period following the schism with the Eastern Orthodox.

It has since improved greatly from the low point it reached under Popes Alexander VI, Julius II and Leo X.

I don’t blame Roman Catholics for wanting the Douai Rheims read to Catholic children instead of the KJV. It was a violation of their rights. The Supreme Court should instead of banning the reading of the Bible required the government subsidize church run parochial schools for people who did not want to use a secular school, and provide chaplains for members of different faiths in the secular schools.

Again, that does not match up with what we see in history. So I am not buying it.

 

[The Liturgist]

Actually, the Catholic church forbidden the regular people from reading or studying the Holy Bible on their own. This rule within the Catholic church only increased into the Middle Ages and after, which also included the restriction on a person translating the Holy Scriptures into their native tongue. This later turned out to having them become burned if they possessed the Scriptures.

Proof?

Decree of the Council of Toulouse (1229 C.E.): "We prohibit also that the laity should be permitted to have the books of the Old or New Testament; but we most strictly forbid their having any translation of these books."

Ruling of the Council of Tarragona of 1234 C.E.: "No one may possess the books of the Old and New Testaments in the Romance language, and if anyone possesses them he must turn them over to the local bishop within eight days after promulgation of this decree, so that they may be burned..."

Proclamations at the Ecumenical Council of Constance in 1415 C.E.: Oxford professor, and theologian John Wycliffe, was the first (1380 C.E.) to translate the New Testament into English to "...helpeth Christian men to study the Gospel in that tongue in which they know best Christ's sentence." For this "heresy" Wycliffe was posthumously condemned by Arundel, the archbishop of Canterbury. By the Council's decree "Wycliffe's bones were exhumed and publicly burned and the ashes were thrown into the Swift River."

Fate of William Tyndale in 1536 C.E.: William Tyndale was burned at the stake for translating the Bible into English. According to Tyndale, the Catholic church forbid owning or reading the Bible to control and restrict the teachings and to enhance their own power and importance.

Tyndale was not burned for translating the Bible into English, but for heresy, because he was a Protestant and opposed intercessory prayer for the saints, but also doubtless because King Henry VIII was furious over his opposition to his attempt to obtain an annulment of his marriage to Catharine of Aragon.

 

[BeingThere]

Go back and re-read this thread. I already shown the errors in the NASB.
If that is not enough, I am sure you can Google it.
But here is one quick source on it.

Various Contradictions and Omissions in Bible Translations

But I am not expecting you to get it (even when looking that these differences because your approach to the Bible is all wrong).

"Contradictions": For these I will use Young's Literal Translation, the KJV and the Common English Bible

1] Mathew 9:13

The omission of "to repentance" in some modern Bibles (though it is included as a footnote) is trivial. We all know repentance as a doctrine is a mandate by God for salvation. What else would God call us to do? The omission is a result of scholarly work determining a textual reading closer to the original manuscripts. Young's says, "to reformation." What else would a Christian be doing?

2] Mathew 18:11

"To save what was lost" is omitted. Yet, in the very next few lines, reads "If someone had one hundred sheep and one of them wandered off, wouldn't he leave the ninety-nine on the hillsides and go in search for the one that wandered off?"

So, no meaning is lost. God has sent his Son to save that which was lost, and regardless of the Bible we are reading here, we would know that. Read in context.

3] Mathew 19:17

KJV reads: ... Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.

CEB reads: Why do you ask me about what is good? There's only one who is good. If you want to enter eternal life, keep the commandments.

Both renderings communicate the idea that no man is good, but only God. The meaning is not obscured. Asking, "why do you ask me about what is good," means that there is only one who knows, and it is not Jesus, though he leads many to the One who does. Again, CONTEXT

4] Mathew 25:13

KJV: Afterward came also the other virgins, saying, Lord, Lord, open to us. But he answered and said, Verily I say unto you, I know you not. Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man cometh. ¶ For the kingdom of heaven is as a man travelling into a far country, who called his own servants, and delivered unto them his goods.

CEB: Later the other bridesmaids came and said, 'Lord, lord, open the door for us.' But he replied, 'I tell you the truth, I don't know you.' "Therefore, keep alert, because you don't know the day or the hour. (After this, the parable of the travelling man)

The message here needs no explaining by me, it is readily apparent in all translations I have seen. Again, read in context. The coming of the Son of Man is not omitted, only one isolated reference which is implied in all translations.

5] Mark 10:24

If all one is reading is the isolated sentence fragments on the chart, and never read the New Testament, then I could see potential for confusion. But again, the surrounding context cannot be forgotten when criticizing certain isolated omissions.

6] Luke 2:33

Joseph is not mentioned by name, yet we know the name of Jesus' father. A superfluous alteration. The translators probably chose an older group of manuscripts which referred to Jesus' father not by name. What loss is it to the message?

7] Luke 4:4

Earlier manuscripts left out, "but by every word of God". The main idea is that bread alone should not be relied upon. Christians, as do any God-fearing people, live by the word of God. This is a curious, though not significant, omission. Certainly does not prove all modern texts are corrupt, but rather that the KJB relied on texts which scribes had added the phrase of concern.

8] Luke 4:8

CEB: It's written, You will worhip the Lord your God and serve only him. (omits: get thee behind me, Adversary; Young's)

The modern translations are working from a different, but contextually nearly identical set of source manuscripts, to the KJB. The meaning is not lost: Only the Lord shall you serve. Leaving Satan in the dust is implied by this paragraph, as well as the entire Bible. A non-issue.


I could go down the list, but you get the idea. Nothing will convince me that Satan is working to dilute the Gospel by translating from a broader set of source manuscripts, which only superficially disagree with the KJB manuscripts (99% consistency). If you think the KJB texts and translation is perfect, you must prove it. I don't need to prove the perfectness of modern translations because I am not claiming such a thing. Needing a "perfect Bible" only obscures our yearning for a perfect repentance, which can only be given by the Word of God, Christ, and not the words on the page.

I am very convinced that people who think such "contradictions" are troublesome know nothing about textual criticism, and also read the Bible as a puzzle, piecing together bits and pieces, hoping to get the "formula" of salvation. We must read it as a whole, in context, and with insight into our personal lives. The teaching, "the kingdom of heaven is within you" means that Christ is calling you to learn about yourself, and repent and be born again. Merely memorizing scripture and keeping purity of the letter is akin to salvation through the law, which does not exist.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Tyndale was not burned for translating the Bible into English, but for heresy, because he was a Protestant and opposed intercessory prayer for the saints, but also doubtless because King Henry VIII was furious over his opposition to his attempt to obtain an annulment of his marriage to Catharine of Aragon.

I don’t believe that was the case, my friend. They threatened to burn anyone caught with a Tyndall Bible after Tyndall was gone. I think they seen him and his followers (with his bible) as a threat to the Catholic faith at that point in history.

William Tyndale: Reformer, Translator, Martyr

 

[Isilwen]

The King James is still the best selling translation in the US (i.e. 55%).

Blind post as I am still reading through the thread.

I just looked it up and from what I have seen, only Wikipedia says it is number one. I have found other sources that say it is number two behind the NIV.

 

[BeingThere]

And that’s my cue to say goodbye to you on discussing this topic with you, my friend.

For our beliefs are too extremely divergent to discuss here.

So may…

All I said was that an allegorical reading is not heretical, which it isn't, therefore Hort and Westcott are not heretical, therefore you can't undermine their work for that reason. Not that that would be good reasoning anyway, because it misses the point that you haven't made. If the KJV is perfect, then prove it.

But reason doesn't seem to matter here. Some people must have it one way: a purely literal reading, which is extra biblical; a divinely inspired and inerrant translation, which is extrabiblical; no allowance for biblical scholarship, which is baseless.

 

[BeingThere]

I would argue, and so would Martin Luther, who prayed what @MarkRohfrietsch has convinced me is the older Western form of the Ave Maria (lacking the intercessory prayer) that the veneration of the Theotokos is extremely beneficial, because she did give birth to God.

I didn't know this. It certainly can't hurt to venerate the mother of Jesus. Yet, it is not necessary as an overt ritual, just another spiritual trinket that Christians don't need, like that extra piece of cake you know you don't need to eat.

Speaking of ritualism, I wonder whether some people prefer ritual and tradition because it is more alive, in the physical body, than scripture heavy modern services. Too much scripture can be a bad thing if you read it obsessively without meditation and rest, which allow the truth to sink in. People forget that life is a constant movement, and that thinking should be superficial to a life in God. Yet, repetitive ritual provides its own problems. The individual should be aware of any false oaths, including pretense of piety.

But, I suppose everyone should find their form of worship. All Christians should be open to people of any reasonable and good belief.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

To all:

I believe that if a person is going to defend the Critical Text fathered by Westcott and Hort as the alternative position of the KJB, they need to look at all of the unbiblical beliefs held by Westcott and Hort. Here is just one extensive article source link on this point.

Theological Heresies of Westcott and Hort

Anyways, I hope it helps someone, and may God bless you all today.

With loving kindness to you in Christ,

Sincerely,

B.L. Highlighter.

 

[Strong in Him]

To what is this referring? Or should I say "forsooth, I knoweth not to where this talk goeth?

To Bible Highlighter's claim that our minds are already made up.