A History Lesson The Truth about the KJV Bible

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread

A History Lesson The Truth about the KJV Bible

The King James Bible, also known as the Authorized Version, was published in 1611 in England under the authority of King James I. This was an effort by the Anglican church to unify the churches around the country and mandate that one version be used (hence the title Authorized Version). Previous Protestant translations included Tyndales (1525) and The Geneva Bible (1560), among others. The Catholic Church authorized The Douay-Rheims Version (1582) as an alternative to the Protestant ones, for those who wished to read the Bible in English.

Pre-1500s, there was pretty much only one version the Latin Vulgate from the 4th century AD. This was the official Bible of the Catholic Church. Latin was chosen because it was the international language of the time anyone who was anybody intellectually, learned Latin. Most everyone else was illiterate. Obviously, there were no printing presses or photocopiers back then, so copying (much less translating) the entire Bible into many different languages would have been extremely tedious, if not impossible. Although, I heard that certain books or passages were translated into the vernacular (common language) at different times.

The King James Version was translated into English from the Latin Vulgate, the official version of the Catholic Church. For those who put their faith entirely in the King James Version of the Bible, they are actually acknowledging the authority of the Catholic Church at that time (1611), rather than relying on modern translations directly from the Greek or Hebrew (eg. New American Standard).

Due to the stance of todays fundamentalists who believe in the final authority of the King James Bible, it is ironic that this Bible actually was established under the authority of King James I, who is supposed to have had Catholic leanings, as can be observed in the following passage from 1 Cor. 13:13:

Tyndale, 1525, 1535 (Protestant): Now abideth faith, hope, and love, even these three: but the chief of these is love.

The Geneva Bible, 1560, 1602 (Protestant): And now abideth faith, hope, and love, even these three: but the chiefest of these is love.

Douay-Rheims Version, 1582 (Catholic): And now there remain faith, hope, and charity, these three, but the greater of these is charity.

King James (Authorized) Version, 1611 (Protestant - Anglican): And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three, but the greatest of these is charity.

Of the 16 other modern Protestant translations indexed at the site below, 2 use charity and 14 use love. (http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible/).

Note that a prominent teaching of Protestants is sola fide (by faith alone we are saved, through Gods grace). This was in opposition to the Catholic teaching that we are saved by Gods grace through both faith and works. What does the Bible say about faith alone (search for this phrase in the NIV and it only appears once, in the same verse as the passage below)?

James 2:24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. (KJV)

Viewing the KJV in this light, one can easily see that the selection of the word charity instead of love in 1 Cor. 13 puts the formers of this Bible in the same camp as the Catholics, by saying that charity (or good works) is actually superior to faith!

For fundamentalists Christians, this poses the question of whose authority they are trusting when they trust in the King James Bible. It is the authority of English monarch King James I, the Anglican church, and the Catholic church, whose Latin version was used to translate the Bible into English. Fundamentalists probably do not wish to be considered in the same camp as Catholics with regard to where they place their authority or interpretation of Scripture.

If the authority of the King James Bible is invalidated without the authority of the Catholic Church to back it up, this inevitably raises the question, Who do fundamentalists trust? Or, if the Bible is the sole authority against which we must measure truth, Which version of the Bible?

This is intended to be informative, and in no way to attack the opinions or beliefs of any particular group. It is merely an account of history to the best of my knowledge and study. I hope that you all find it helpful!

God bless,

-- Emily (jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), January 16, 2004

Answers

Response to A History Lesson – The Truth about the KJV Bible

Right you are, Emily. Most KJV Protestants today have no idea how completely different their Bible looks from the original version.

Here's a link to some pictures of the "real deal."

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Rhodes/1967

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 16, 2004.


Response to A History Lesson – The Truth about the KJV Bible

Where do you get your info from? because KJV is based on Textus Receptus.

To hear the OTHER side of the story, please read the various articles by people on the OTHER side. If you only read catholic articles, you're subjecting yourself to half-truths, and even errors.

We are saved by grace alone. Ephesians 2:8-9 A real salvation will bring forth good fruit John 15... that is where many people misinterpret the bible. Because one can taste the fruits of salvation, and walk away.

-- marcin from chicago (coolis00@hotmail.com), January 16, 2004.


Response to A History Lesson – The Truth about the KJV Bible

No one should be surprised that I responded to this post.

also Romans 11:6

And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace:otherwise work is no more work.

-- marcin from chicago (coolis00@hotmail.com), January 16, 2004.


Response to A History Lesson – The Truth about the KJV Bible

Actually, this is very unfair a post... I am not a King James nly person, bt he translation is deserving more respect than this, and needs not be attacked...

I read regulalry form it, and HAVE a copy of the origional 1611 repinted AS IS, as a collectors item.

Its not that different , only the spelling changes and a few revisions where made, and even Jeromes Latin V Culgate had that happen.

Lets look at hte article. My comments in {} Brackettes.

A History Lesson The Truth about the KJV Bible The King James Bible, also known as the Authorized Version, was published in 1611 in England under the authority of King James I. This was an effort by the Anglican church to unify the churches around the country and mandate that one version be used (hence the title Authorized Version). Previous Protestant translations included Tyndales (1525) and The Geneva Bible (1560), among others. The Catholic Church authorized The Douay-Rheims Version (1582) as an alternative to the Protestant ones, for those who wished to read the Bible in English.

{Half ruth form the word Go. The Bishops Bible was in need of repair, and Jmses autorised a new translation, in order to have one acceptable to all churhces, and to correct all the flaws of the older ones...}-Zarove

Pre-1500s, there was pretty much only one version the Latin Vulgate from the 4th century AD. This was the official Bible of the Catholic Church. Latin was chosen because it was the international language of the time anyone who was anybody intellectually, learned Latin. Most everyone else was illiterate. Obviously, there were no printing presses or photocopiers back then, so copying (much less translating) the entire Bible into many different languages would have been extremely tedious, if not impossible. Although, I heard that certain books or passages were translated into the vernacular (common language) at different times.

{No comment needed...}-Zarove

The King James Version was translated into English from the Latin Vulgate, the official version of the Catholic Church.

{This is a lie. The King James Version used the Vulgate, as well as the Bishops Bible, as references, but used the "Rextus Reciptus" as a base for translating. It translated form the Greek and Hebrew. Not form Latin...}-Zarove

For those who put their faith entirely in the King James Version of the Bible, they are actually acknowledging the authority of the Catholic Church at that time (1611), rather than relying on modern translations directly from the Greek or Hebrew (eg. New American Standard).

{The King James is also direct form Henrew and Greek, The Textus Recpipitus was sued, not the Latin Vulgate, as the text translated. The Vulgate was used as reference...}-Zarove

Due to the stance of todays fundamentalists who believe in the final authority of the King James Bible, it is ironic that this Bible actually was established under the authority of King James I, who is supposed to have had Catholic leanings, as can be observed in the following passage from 1 Cor. 13:13:

Tyndale, 1525, 1535 (Protestant): Now abideth faith, hope, and love, even these three: but the chief of these is love.

The Geneva Bible, 1560, 1602 (Protestant): And now abideth faith, hope, and love, even these three: but the chiefest of these is love.

Douay-Rheims Version, 1582 (Catholic): And now there remain faith, hope, and charity, these three, but the greater of these is charity.

King James (Authorized) Version, 1611 (Protestant - Anglican): And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three, but the greatest of these is charity.

{You do realise the Doubey Rheims was revised, and often included the more familiar King James version phrases , right? In this instance, the DR Bible copied the KJV, no tthe other way around. }-Zarove

Of the 16 other modern Protestant translations indexed at the site below, 2 use charity and 14 use love. (http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible/).

{Which means nothing, since the language in the King Jmaes Bible is 400 years out of date. It woudl ahve been understood then.}-Zarove

Note that a prominent teaching of Protestants is sola fide (by faith alone we are saved, through Gods grace). This was in opposition to the Catholic teaching that we are saved by Gods grace through both faith and works. What does the Bible say about faith alone (search for this phrase in the NIV and it only appears once, in the same verse as the passage below)?

James 2:24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. (KJV)

Viewing the KJV in this light, one can easily see that the selection of the word charity instead of love in 1 Cor. 13 puts the formers of this Bible in the same camp as the Catholics, by saying that charity (or good works) is actually superior to faith!

{Not really, thats deception, using wordplay, in the articles authors part. The King James Bible used the word Charity in a different context, as the language has EVOLVED over time. This is proectign modern meanings onto the past.}-Zarove

For fundamentalists Christians, this poses the question of whose authority they are trusting when they trust in the King James Bible.

{No it doesnt, and this sint a fair and balanced veiw of hte debate, nor even honest withhte Hisotry of the KJV.}-Zarove

It is the authority of English monarch King James I, the Anglican church, and the Catholic church, whose Latin version was used to translate the Bible into English.

{Again, this is deception. The Textus Recipitus was used, NOT the Latin Vulgate, the vulgate was only a reference, NOT the base text.}- Zarove

Fundamentalists probably do not wish to be considered in the same camp as Catholics with regard to where they place their authority or interpretation of Scripture.

{Considerign that thios article itsself lies a lot, takign generalities is no surprise, as it is also a very easy lie to sell...}-Zarove

If the authority of the King James Bible is invalidated without the authority of the Catholic Church to back it up, this inevitably raises the question, Who do fundamentalists trust? Or, if the Bible is the sole authority against which we must measure truth, Which version of the Bible?

{The argument is over th words translated and the source. Most of the King James only peopel distrust the texts of Wescott and Hort, and the alexandrian text, and prefer to use the textus recipitus. The debate is long and I will post on it later, but basically, its not about the tranlators authoriyu, but on what manuscripts where used. And its a lie to say that the KJV was translated form the Latin, jujst as its a lie to assume that who translated it is the auhtority trusted, when in fact the debateis over the pure word of God.}-Zarove

(I am indebted to _The Norton Anthology of English Literature, 7th ed, vol. 1_ for much of this information. Also, some of this I learned from my college English professor, who is, by the way, a Protestant).

{Irrelevant.}-Zarove

This is intended to be informative, and in no way to attack the opinions or beliefs of any particular group. It is merely an account of history to the best of my knowledge and study. I hope that you all find it helpful!

{Unfortunatleym, its a flawed article, filled with little to no merit. I will post a thread later.}-Zarove

God bless,



-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), January 16, 2004.


Response to A History Lesson – The Truth about the KJV Bible

My post was not not from a Catholic website. It simply shows pictures of the first KVJ and compares the indices and manner in which the KJV was laid out THEN, to how it is NOW!

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 16, 2004.


Response to A History Lesson – The Truth about the KJV Bible

In fact, if you look at the pictures, the original KJV looks more Catholic than Protestant . . . by today's standards.

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 16, 2004.

Response to A History Lesson – The Truth about the KJV Bible

I was refering to the firstg post, in which the Kinf James Bible was unjustly attakced, and falsehoods spoken agisnt it, sych as it being a translation of the latin Vulgate, or its supposed Cathlic leanings, when in fact it was a neutral translation.

This is, in fact, one of hte biggest reasons I use the KJV, becaus it is neutral, and uninterfered with by doctorine.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), January 16, 2004.


Response to A History Lesson – The Truth about the KJV Bible

God isn't made neutral. His Word must be preserved, not neutralized.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 16, 2004.

Response to A History Lesson – The Truth about the KJV Bible

His Word was made man and lived amongst us. His Word created a Chruch to teach what is Truth. His Word did NOT create a "Bible" to teach Truth, men did. And with the KJV, men with a 'grudge' did. It is time to recognize this and become a real Christian and follow Christ, I think.

In Christ, Bill Nelson

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), January 16, 2004.


Response to A History Lesson – The Truth about the KJV Bible

As I said, Zarove, you apparently did not look at the pictures. Your KVJ does not even remotely RESEMBLE the original. Why don't you take just a little peek?

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 16, 2004.


Response to A History Lesson – The Truth about the KJV Bible

Fail, I own a museum uality replica...I think it pretty well is as close as it gets tot he origional.

as to God not being neutral, I eant only that te translation didnt suffer from th biases of some other translations, many of which emloy theological standpoints in order to translate the Bible.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), January 16, 2004.


Response to A History Lesson – The Truth about the KJV Bible

While I'm not a fan of the KJV, I do know that it wasn't translated from the Latin Vulgate. So I wouldn't place too much credence on the article above - it's entire foundation is false.

Dave

-- non-Catholic Christian (dlbowerman@yahoo.com), January 16, 2004.


Response to A History Lesson – The Truth about the KJV Bible

A pretty good history of the KJV is here: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02141a.htm

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), January 16, 2004.

Response to A History Lesson – The Truth about the KJV Bible

All I ask is that pople please read the history... not form either propeganda sides of the KJV Debate...one side makes it as divinely inspired as the origionals, the other tries to trash it any way it can... boh are wrong...

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), January 16, 2004.

Response to A History Lesson EThe Truth about the KJV Bible

I'm sorry that the information I received and posted was incorrect. It was correct to the best of my knowledge, as I stated. I stand corrected about the Latin Vulgate translation. It was not intended to deceive, but merely inform. I honestly did not intend to post incorrect or biased information, and since it came from Protestant sources, I thought that it would be fair since it seemed to have a Catholic slant. Apparently not. Sorry.

What do you think about the verses, though. Aside from the whole Latin vulgate thing, I mean. The use of "charity" rather than love, and saying that charity is greater than faith is an issue that I don't think was addressed.

God bless,

-- Emily (jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), January 17, 2004.



Response to A History Lesson – The Truth about the KJV Bible

emily, you have no need to appologize. there are about as many creation myths of how the KJV came to be as there are different protestant tracts.

the fact of the matter is, it all draws back to a man who wanted to have a second marraige because he grew tired of his first wife, and needed to rewrite the bible to make it okay. nuff said, book closed, and anyone who says otherwise obviously has never taken a college modern religious history course.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), January 17, 2004.


Response to A History Lesson – The Truth about the KJV Bible

Other than perhaps missing what our Protestant brethren call the Apochrypha, what are the differences between a modern version of the KJV and the New American Bible translation that used modern scholarship and as close to the original manuscripts (of the Greek and Hebrew) that they could find? I understand that the original KJV is in old-style flowery language.

-- Andy (aszmere@aerthlink.net), January 17, 2004.

Response to A History Lesson – The Truth about the KJV Bible

Oh, I love the flowery language of the 16th century. So majestic and so powerful. I just got a copy of the Douay Rheims, LEATHER bound, which PREDATES the KJV, so it's got that old English. I've been looking for years for a leather bound Douay. Plus it contains oodles of Catholic footnotes!!

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 17, 2004.


Response to A History Lesson – The Truth about the KJV Bible

I gotta get me one of those too Gail. :)

-- Andy (aszmere@earthlink.net), January 17, 2004.

Response to A History Lesson – The Truth about the KJV Bible

Here's the link http://www.baroniuspress.com to the Douay Rheims leather bound. It's approximately 76 US dollars.

Emily, don't feel too bad about that article. I searched and searched for the answer to the question of what KJV was translated from last night, and found several different answers from Protestant sites.

Gail

P.S. Do look at those pictures I posted. They truly are amazing, and really the KJV looks like a Catholic book with all of its references to feast days and other liturgical matters. The deutoros are clearly listed. KJV only fans would be SHOCKED!

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 17, 2004.


Response to A History Lesson – The Truth about the KJV Bible

I did cover the Charity thing.

You have to remember three things about the King James Bible.

1: It was made for all Christains, not a spacific denomination. Theirfore, it was mad withthe Apocrypha, or Deuterocannon, in it, and even refeed to the feast days and such. Protestants whre free to ignore those, while catholcis coudl use them. When the King James became a Protestant only property, the apocryppha ( No offence, just the term used in KJC Discussion) was removed.

2: The Douby Rheims Bible often quoted FROM the King James. The King James Bible was so popylar at he time of the revision that the doubey Theims Bible often copied the style, thus some verses, including the Charity one, are more than likely the end result of THAT revision, theirfore probabely the copying went from the KJV to he DR, not the other way around.

3: The King James Bible is old. The word Charity did not mean good works, its oputdated language. We must not mistake archaic usage of words, such as Charity, or in another passage evil, as having exaclty the same meanign tot he ears of 1611 as they do now.

Their is a famous passage in Isaiah that ststes that God created Evil. Most Modern translations call it Calamety, or woe, or sorow. The Kinf James Bible did NOT get it wrong, nor did the Kinf James Bile advocat a Theology of God creatign evil in the context that we mean it, but the word Evil coudl mean anyhtign bad, including thinderstorms and the like.

Same applies to CVharity. The usage int he King James only meant love and compassionate feeling, NOT good works.

Remember, it wasnt prodiuced yesterday, its 450 years old.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), January 17, 2004.


Response to A History Lesson – The Truth about the KJV Bible

AS TO BEING FROM A PROTESTANT SITE: IMPORTANT

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), January 17, 2004.

Response to A History Lesson – The Truth about the KJV Bible

AS TO BEING FROM A PROTESTANT SITE: IMPORTANT.

Not all Protestants have a great veneration for the King James Bible. In fact, many are outspoken agaisnt it, in favour of modern translations. The article you posted above is an anti-Kinf James Bible site, that seeks to replace the Kinf Jame sn favour of modern translations, and chooses to do so by discrediting the KJV rather than advocatign a new translation.

Their are plenty of Protestants pout their that actively seek to destory the King James Bible, not all of them hold it as the highest standard of Biblical auhtority.

I, for example, use the King James, but fdont think it either infallabely translated, nor do I attack it, but I have heard BOTH sides of the debate for years.

Many Many many protestants woudl have the Kinf James Bible removed form all churches and replaced with such thigns as thr NIV or the NRSV.

They dotn all cast vites for the King Jamdes, tis not "The Protestant Bible."

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), January 17, 2004.


Response to A History Lesson – The Truth about the KJV Bible

Zarove, I'm afraid you are mistaken when you say "The Douby Rheims Bible often quoted FROM the King James." The Douay PREDATES the KJV so your statement is false on its face.

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 17, 2004.

Response to A History Lesson – The Truth about the KJV Bible

Gail,
Your both right:

From the old Catholic Encyclopedia:

"In the year 1578, owing to political troubles, the college was temporarily transferred from Douai (which was then in the dominions of the King of Spain) to Reims, and during its sojourn there, in 1582, the New Testament was published, and became consequently known as the "Rheims Testament". It contained no episcopal imprimatur, but a recommendation was appended signed by four divines of the University of Reims. The Old Testament was delayed by want of means, until the whole Bible was eventually published in two quarto volumes, in 1609 and 1610, by which time the college had returned to Douai, and the recommendation was signed by three doctors of that university. Thus the New Testament appeared nearly thirty years before the Anglican "Authorized Version", and although not officially mentioned as one of the versions to be consulted, it is now commonly recognized to have had a large influence on the King James Version (see Preface to R. V., i, 2; also, Carleton, "Rheims and the English Bible").
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05140a.htm

"Bishop Challoner made his revision of the Douay Bible (1749-52), which is now commonly in use among English-speaking Catholics, he did not scruple to borrow largely from it. Indeed, Cardinal Newman gives it as his opinion (Tracts Theol. and Eccles., 373) that Challoner's revision was even nearer to the Authorized Version than to the original Douay, "not in grammatical structure, but in phraseology and diction"."
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02141a.htm



-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), January 17, 2004.


Response to A History Lesson – The Truth about the KJV Bible

Thanks Bill. I never cliamed that the Origional DR Bible quoted form the KJV, I said the revision did.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), January 17, 2004.

Response to A History Lesson – The Truth about the KJV Bible

AND Gail... I beleive I tolf YOU that they had the Deuterocannonicals in it, you at one time told me that it lacked them. You learned on another thread form me that you coudl get a KJV with the Deuterocannonical writigns in it... so I harldsy hink I would be shocked to discover that they are in them when I knew before you did.

See ig you can ind a reprodiction of the origional 1611, Thomas Nelson publushing did one a few years back, and its well worth the effort.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.CO,), January 17, 2004.


Response to A History Lesson – The Truth about the KJV Bible

Thanks for the link Gail.

-- Andy (aszmere@earthlink.net), January 17, 2004.

Response to A History Lesson – The Truth about the KJV Bible

Zarove, I have a copy of the KJV with the deuteros, and have had it for over a year. I think you misunderstand something I said earlier. My point was that most people do not realize that the KJV they carry and love is missing 6 books that the original had as is evidence by the pictures I presented through that link.

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 18, 2004.


Response to A History Lesson – The Truth about the KJV Bible

But my point was that I already knew this... its not that shockinjg to many of us.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), January 18, 2004.

Response to A History Lesson – The Truth about the KJV Bible

The Apocrypha is not regarded as one of the 'inspired' books by most theologians and it is not surprise therefore that it is not now included in the KJV which I personally find to be the best of all the versions of the bible

-- claver r. dixon (claver_d@hotmail.com), February 21, 2004.

Response to A History Lesson – The Truth about the KJV Bible

My initial post on this thread contains false information. At the time I wrote it, I believed that it was true, but this was due to little research and basing what I wrote on things I heard, rather than researching the claim (sin of omission). The Scripture passages and some of the historical references are accurate. However, in my eagerness to support my own view, I sinned because I had little regard for the truth. Rather, I selfishly wanted to advance my own views, which is akin to deception. I am ashamed and truly sorry for this sin, of which God has been convicting me lately. I owe an apology to all of you on this board, and I ask your forgiveness.

-- Emily (jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), April 28, 2004.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ