Hey everyone. A person I am chatting with on Youtube thinks that the King James Version of the Bible is the only accurate Bible to use. They say that newer versions leave out verses and such. How on earth do I come at this sort of argument. I know that the modern translations of the Bible are just as accurate if not more so because of modern scholarship but I think I need some more “ammo” so to speak in order to tackle this kind of argument.
King James Bible misses seven books.
How can that be accurate?
My dad had this opinion - he said 'if it was good enough for Jesus, it’s good enough for me!
I gave up at that point!!!
Good to study the history of the Bible. Old Testament is based on the Jewish Bible…Torah etc. New Testament on the writings of the Matthew, Mark, Luke and John although not all were actually written by them.
During time of Christ, the Bible, consisting of just the Old Testament, had seven books which we Catholics still have but the Protestants don’t. These books were written in Greek. Way after His death, the Jews declared that only those written in Hebrew could be used so they were removed. Protestants followed suit after the Reformation. Catholics need to use a Catholic Bible because there is a reference to Purgatory in those books.
The Catholic Bible was approved in the late 300 or early 400AD at the Council of Hippo. However, the majority of people could not read and a hand written Bible was extremely costly. Guttenberg printed the first Catholic Bible in the 1500s. Still costly and majority were still illiterate.
Early Christians were taught orally because they could not read and Bibles were limited. This went on for hundreds of years.
The King James Version is not the Bible used by Christ. I’m amazed that Protestants believe in Sola Scriptura considering that is not in the Bible. Also they quote many things but for some reason just don’t digest the part “This is My Body, This is My Blood.” Some are actually surprised by that passage having never really seen it before. Amazing. Looking through a glass darkly.
You will most likely never convice them, only God can.
If they, all of the sudden would belive that what they have been told about their Bible is not true, that would be very hard for them to accept, then they would have to think of other things that they have been taught which are not true.
That being said, you can go to the following site and see some of the problems with accuracy of some Scripture, in reading this, then they will have a choice to make, believe what the site is saying or believe what their pastor is telling them about their Bible.
Perhaps one approach to the argument would be to ask your friend whether he believes the translators of the King James Bible received some special grace from God that assured that their translation would be complete and perfectly accurate, and why would God not similarly bless the scholars who have translated the Bible since then?
This is not a proof of anything, but it’s just a way to open a dialog about God’s word and how it has been transmitted over the centuries.
My father is a staunch King James Version only believer. He picked it up from an Assemblies of God preacher that he follows closely. I am yet to find a way to unconvince him.
The Catholic bible was put out in 397. The King James accepted the authority of the Catholic Church by accepting the 27 NT books that they considered for the NT. The 1611 version of KJV had all 73 books. In 1885 the 7 books went missing. There are all sorts of stories for this. Some say the protestant churches took them out. Some say the printer thought it would be cheaper to take them out. Whatever the reason I feel they are walking on thin ice. I understand that you can still get KJV versions with the 73 books. What a mess.
There is no way you can convince such a person with any argument. You’re best just agreeing to disagree. Unless a person investigates the origin of the bible themselves they will be influenced by others that have such an dogma about the KJV bible.
You can start with the fact that Jesus grew up a Middle Eastern Jew but the KJV reads like something from the Dark Ages. :p;)
KJV is based on the earlier Tyndall translation. A number of the phrases are from Tyndall. Tyndall did have a faulty translation in which he tried to inject his anti-Catholic bias into it.
Point out that reading something in 1611 English language is rather antiquated. The English language has changed quite a lot since then. Does God really want us to read the Bible in 1611 English language that isn’t understandable? That seems to defeat the purpose of having and reading the Bible in one’s own language? Does that mean that all other translations in other language are inaccurate and only this outdated translation is the final and best? Ask this person seriously?
So, which is the best Catholic bible to study from? I was given a copy of the NAB by my RCIA leader, but I’d like to get a version on my laptop. Should I get the NAB?
And why is the KJV associated with Catholics? I’ve heard many people describe it as a Catholic bible, but it can’t be if it’s missing seven books. Also, if it was King James, why is it missing those books? Wasn’t he an English king and would have wanted either the Catholic or Anglican version? Both would have had all the books.
I have heard that the Mormons use it. Which other denominations do?
I always thank a KJV-onlyist for using a Lutheran translation. That works for me, but wouldn’t for most of you. A few other points fo consider:
1: In the preface, the translators say that they are producing a new translation because the language of the Bishop’s Bible had become dated, implying that they did not see their own work as the end of the process.
2: Almost no one uses the 1611 KJV, but a translation made in 1769, BECAUSE, by that time, the language of the 1611 translation had become dated.
3: These people are reading the Bible, which is a good thing, just as someone reading the English Standard Version (my favorite), the New Jerusalem Bible, or any other legitimate translation.
4: The major translations of the Bible are in roughly 97% agreement on the text.
5: Arguments about outdated language would be equally applicable to the Douay-Rheims, which used many of the same resources. In fact, the last few verses of Revelation were missing from the Greek manuscripts available to Erasmus for the Textus Receptus, so he back translated the D-R into Greek and included it in the Textus Receptus.
Makes sense but what’s the ideal period from which the written English can be understood by all English-speaking people of the world?
KJV is not a Catholic bible. Read my post No. 8.
In my opinion the NAB is a decent enough version to read from, however, for studying I prefer the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible (New Testament) Second Catholic Edition RSV.
It is easy to read, has great commentary, and where applicable, the commentary references the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It also has a concordance, and a history of the Bible.
According to Dr. Bart Ehrman, one of the New Revised Standard Versions would be the best. The Bible Gateway website lists four different editions of this latest most up-to-date Bible translation.
Lutherans throughout the world use Bibles written in various languages, including English, German, Swedish, Danish, Norwegian, Finnish, Polish, etc. Each language translation has its own unique conventions. Thus the various versions will differ.
The same goes for Catholic Bibles, written in English, Gaelic, German, Dutch, French, Spanish, Italian, Polish, Czech, Croatian, Hungarian, and Slovenian.
Then there are the Bibles written for the Egyptian Coptics, Arabic Christians, Iranians, Ethiopians, Syrians, Armenians, and Georgians.
How about the Bibles written for Orthodox Christians, appearing in Albanian, Greek, Russian, Ukrainian, Bulgarian, Romanian, and Serbian,
There is no uniform meaning in all these different translations, so how can one be serious about sola scriptura?
Well, a 1611 version isn’t current English now would it? KJV is not a Catholic Bible and it was done by Protestants in England. It is considered the most authentic by fundamentalists who have elevated it above even the original Greek and Hebrew and even St. Jerome’s work. I think people are getting confused on this thread. Just because there may have been the seven books that Luther threw out doesn’t mean that this is a Catholic approved translation, because it isn’t. Considering the devotion that many fundamentalists have to it ought to give any Catholic pause in using it. I think people get caught up in the poetry of it. Now maybe you prefer the Duoy Rheims which was done around that time but is an authentic approved Catholic translation. I guess I prefer more current English.
EVERYONE knows that Jesus read from the Douay-Rheims (Chanoller revision). If it was good enough for GOD, it’s good enough for me!!!
Seriously, if the person you’re talking to thinks that the King James Version is the only reliable version, go ahead and use it. Get a copy that includes the apocrypha. Some of the translation choices even help reinforce Catholic doctrine (such as 2 Cor 2:10 - forgiving sins in the person of Christ).
How do you know what EVERYONE knows? Jesus took his quotes from the Old Testament only, since that was all there was. The Challoner version of the Douay-Rheims Bible was published in about 1750. How could Jesus have read from this version?