KJB: The Book That Changed the World

Hulu.com ^ | April 5, 2011 | Lions Gate

[Salvation]

Douay Rheims was sourced from the KJV?

I don’ think so. It has a lot more books and more accurate translation from the Latin.

[RedHeeler]

There is no accurate translation.

[Salvation]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douay%E2%80%93Rheims_Bible

[Salvation]

I believe the Vulgate and the Greek together provide a very accurate background.

[RegulatorCountry]

I’ll be charitable and say that you’re unintentionally promulgating an erroneous belief pertaining to the King James Bible. As originally authorized it most certainly contains the Apocrypha, or as you’d no doubt prefer, the Deuterocanonical Books.

As far as accurate translation from the Latin, perhaps such a high regard for that language at the expense of all others is source of error in and of itself?

[Iscool]

Benjamin Wilson’s Emphatic Diaglott cites over 20,000 inconsistancies between the King James Authorized Version and actual Biblical text.

Since Mr. Wilson never saw the actual biblical text nor an exact copy of it, his opinion is just a little less than worthless...

[RegulatorCountry]

Challoner Douay-Rheims, in English. It relied very heavily upon the KJV. Please see the following cite from the link you provided:

The Douay–Rheims Bible achieved little currency, even among English-speaking Catholics, until it was substantially revised between 1749 and 1752 by Richard Challoner, an English bishop, formally appointed to the deserted see of Debra. Challoner's revisions borrowed heavily from the King James Version

[Iscool]

I don’ think so. It has a lot more books and more accurate translation from the Latin.

The Latin??? I don't think Peter wrote or even spoke in Latin...

Jerome rewrote his Latin version from the 'old' Latin and called it the Vulgate...

[Springfield Reformer]

Then why did you write this if all those people were real people and wrote Letters, Gospels, Books of the Bible

Albert Einstein once once said you should make something as simple as you can but no simpler. The means by which God gave us Scripture is in one sense very simple. God moved in holy men to produce God-breathed Scripture.  See 2 Peter 1:21, 2 Tim 3:16, etc. I'm sure you've seen this discussed before.  So we say God is the Author because He is, and humans did the actual writing because they did.  Both things are true. We are talking about God here.  This is a miraculous book.  So to oversimplifying it by either ignoring either the human instrumentality or the divine origin is to wander into error.

As for your other post, where you wonder why we don't get how the book is Catholic in origin, allow me to attempt an explanation. I am not asking at this point that you agree.  But it would be nice if we could actually understand each other's position. In the first place, we don't see the Bible as Roman Catholic because it truly is not a product originated by Rome. God is the origin. Men were merely caretakers. It is fundamentally misleading to suggest to the novice or the unlearned that the Bible is a creation of Rome. To demonstrate this, consider that the larger portion of it, the Old Testament, although it was written by Israelites, does not have it's origin in Israel. Shocking statement, I know, but true, if you understand that the true, ultimate origin of the text is the Holy Spirit moving in the hearts and speaking through the pens of lawgivers and prophets. The humans in the equation were mere agents for the Principal, Who was God, and it is the Principal who gets credit for origination, not the agent.

Second, even if your primary reference point is the human authors, you would still have to say the bulk of the book is Jewish writing, therefore clearly not Roman Catholic. Yes, Israel was the caretaker for the law and the prophetic texts as they were produced over many centuries. But being caretaker did not make the Jewish magisterium infallible, or even good.  By Jesus' time, they had fallen into such corruption they were told to their face by Jesus they had become unsavable for having blasphemed the Holy Spirit. This shows that in principle, while it was certainly a privilege to be the caretaker, you can lose your job as caretaker by being unfaithful to what God has entrusted to you. So just as those Jewish caretakers could not claim a controlling "ownership" of the divine text, though they were for a time it's caretaker, so too no modern magisterium of any pedigree can claim ownership of what does not fundamentally belong to them, and if they are unfaithful, they can and will lose even their humble job of caretaker. Remember Revelation and those candlesticks being taken away for unfaithfulness.

Third, we have a major definitional problem. When did the [c]atholic eccelsia of Christ become the Roman Catholic Church? How do we measure that? If being "Roman Catholic" means adopting a number of doctrines and practices not found at all among the early [c]atholics, how can the Bible, which was all done being written before the end of the First Century, be the product of an entity that did not evolve into being until centuries later? In other words, the Roman Church in it's identifiably Roman form simply did not exist when the apostolic age closed and the Scriptures were already complete and in use among the Christian faithful. So how can the Bible be the product of a group that did not exist at the time the actual writing of it was done and over? It's not logical.

Now I know this goes up hard against some of your most treasured assumptions, but it's where we are coming from. I hope this helps you understand us a little better.

Peace,

SR

[RedHeeler]

Of course, you should/do and always have. Yet the true translation is written in our souls. Seems kinda funny.

[RegulatorCountry]

Peter would no doubt be horrified to have posthumously been labeled Pontifex Maximus, too, the titular head of the pagan religion of Imperial Rome that killed him. In the company of Caligula and Nero.

[Pelham]

“The KJV, while a fairly accurate translation, left out some very important books and is thus WRONG. “

The KJV translators weren’t the first to identify those particular “very important books” as being outside the canon of scripture.

St Jerome dismissed them as ‘apocrypha’, and St Jerome happens to be the man who produced the Latin Vulgate translation that the Catholic Church uses. His preference was to not include them as part of the Bible.

“not quite the way it happened...The Catholic church tried its best to keep perverted versions out of the hands of people....not the true bible.”

After the fall of Constantinople European scholars once again had access to Greek texts of the Bible. Dutch Catholic scholar Erasmus of Rotterdam used six of these Greek texts to produce the Textus Receptus.

Erasmus’ Textus Receptus was used as the basis for the German Luther Bible, the Tyndale Bible, the KJV and other Reformation era Bibles. Modern scholars have access to Greek texts besides the ones used by Erasmus. The Byzantine text is the most common and the Alexandrian text the oldest.

Erasmus sometimes altered his text to conform with the Latin Vulgate. As a result the KJV is closer to Jerome’s Latin Vulgate than are modern translations from the Greek text.

[Springfield Reformer]

Peter would no doubt be horrified to have posthumously been labeled Pontifex Maximus, too, the titular head of the pagan religion of Imperial Rome that killed him. In the company of Caligula and Nero.

Indeed, a tragic irony.

[Pelham]

“The KJB, like all other Bibles before it, came from.......

“The Vulgate, which is a late fourth-century Latin translation of the Bible that became, during the 16th century, the Catholic Church’s officially promulgated Latin version of the Bible. Without the Vulgate the King James Version of the Bible would not exist.”

Nonsense. That’s not accurate in the slightest.

The KJV was translated from the Greek Textus Receptus that Dutch Catholic scholar Erasmus of Rotterdam had produced using six Greek New Testament manuscripts. The first printing of Erasmus’ work was in 1516 and it was the basis for Reformation era Bible translations including Luther, Tyndale, and the KJB.

[Pelham]

“A good question would be, what does the good Catholic author of this claim consider to be the actual Biblical text?”

Since most people aren’t reading histories of the biblical canon my bet is that imagination is a popular source.

What’s amusing is that the KJV is actually closer to the Catholic bible than modern translations because Erasmus adjusted his Textus Receptus to conform with the Latin Vulgate rather than sticking with the six Greek texts he was working from.

I think I found the source of the ‘20,000 errors’ claim. Erasmus rushed his Textus Receptus to print and it does contain typographical errors. Moreover the Greek manuscripts that he worked from aren’t in complete agreement with what is now called the ‘Majority Text’ which has been compiled from the most common Byzantine New Testaments.

The actual difference between the Textus Receptus and the Majority Text amounts to 1,838 readings. This must be after accounting for typos. Evidently the differences are minor because if they were of great importance someone would surely be eager to seize on them rather than just count them.

[Springfield Reformer]

Your statement that the KJB came from the Vulgate does not make sense to me

Me either. Again, the problem here is gross oversimplification. The true history of the KJV text is long and complex with many tributaries. Saying it is a direct product of the Vulgate is flat out wrong, though it would be equally wrong to say the Vulgate had no influence, because it did. One of the reasons projects like Erasmus’ Greek text were undertaken was that significantly more Greek manuscript evidence was available than in Jerome’s day and the Vulgate was shown to be a defective translation in many points. So one could expect Greek texts stemming from that tradition to have those corrections.

Probably of greater importance than the Vulgate was the commitment to the Byzantine Greek text form, which in general is very supportive of the KJV New Testament. Most modern translations are derived from either the Alexandrian text form or the Byzantine, and have very little if any reliance on the Vulgate.

Peace,

SR

[Pelham]

That could come as a shock to Obama.

[Alex Murphy]

Of all places, Hulu has this well done, interesting and edifying documentary (with ads) with actor John Rhys-Davies. Describes King James 1 upbringing and and political events, including the Gunpowder Plot and shows historical background and aspects which led to this translation.

Will be interesting to see if any Catholics post a defense of the Gunpowder Plot.

[Alex Murphy]

**the KJV has cost the loss of more souls than any other book in history.**

I agree, because it isn’t the entire Bible.

So missing the entire Bible will cost someone their soul? Do they have to actually read it, own it, or just know someone who has a copy? Where does this leave Catholics who think they've heard the entire Bible read to them in the daily mass?

[daniel1212]

Although retaining the title Douay–Rheims Bible, the Challoner revision was a new version, tending to take as its base text the King James Bible...”

Which is another thing that sees disagreement, with some RC purists insisting upon the original DRB.