OK, we have been discussing the King James Version fo the Hly Bible, otherwise known as the Authorised Version.

Now, it is a well known fact that initially, the additional books used by Roman Catholics, that are absent from Protestant Bibles, wher eone in the King James Bible.

It is less known that some Kinf James publishers produce Bibles withthem still within, updated with modrn spelling and punctuationto amek them easier to read.

Now, my proposal, and this is just to ask. What if they put out a King James Biblke-Catholic DEdition? Would this not be a good idea? all the mateirals exist already, so it coudl easily be done by simpley inseting the needed books into the right places.

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

Answers

The missing books, common to all Protestant bibles, are the least of the problems with the KJV. The many translational errors of the KJV make it one of the least reliable of all translations in common use today, with or without the seven Old Testament books.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), January 17, 2004.

Like what errors? () The KJV has fewer than most modern ones...

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

Zarove, why don't you get the Douay-Rheims which predates KJV, is Old English and is CATHOLIC! It is truly a marvelous translation! You would love it if you love KJV.

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

I have a Doiby Theims... and a Revised Standard Version, and an American Standard, and even a Joseph Smith Translation. I collect. King James surpasses most.

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

I find the Douay Rheims Version not as "Shakespearean" as the KJV. The KJV seems more poetic to me. However, the deciding factor is that the DR unquestionably calls Holy Mary, "Hail, Full of Grace, the Lord is with thee: Blessed art thou among women." Therefore I prefer the DR over the KJV and I believe that DR is more reliable.

-- catholic8450327913065297 (catholic8450327913065297@Catholic.Truth), January 17, 2004.

Actualy the King James is acurate.

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

Zarove, could you do the readers of the forum a favor? Use spellcheck before you post. The spelling errors are a torture for the reader.

-- J. Fernandes (goananda@hotmail.com), January 17, 2004.

In fact, a Protestant Bible society published a list of more than 3,000 translational errors in the KJV. Some of them were simple problems with punctuation, pluralization and such. But many others involved serious errors in meaning, demonstrating the lack of proficiency of the translators selected by King James. They simply were not expert in the ancient languages they were attempting to translate, and their work shows it. Some of their mistranslations are really quite bizarre - like their repeated rendering of the Hebrew phrase "horned beasts" as "unicorns", instead of its correct translation - "oxen".

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), January 17, 2004.

Zarove and Paul M.,

I'm wondering how you know that the KJV is accurate or that there are many translation errors, respectively. What authority are you basing this on, or have you studied Greek and/or Hebrew? I have not, and with all these conflicting messages, how can one know for sure which translation is the most accurate?

Thanks and God bless,

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

Paul M.,

Sorry about my message above an thanks for your response. Apparently we must have posted our messages at about the same time. You seem to have proven your point well :)

God bless,

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

Some of the specific errors in the KJV are listed here:

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Olympus/5257/kjverror.htm

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), January 18, 2004.

Paul , be fair.

3000 errors, to be blunt, isnt much. It sound daunting to the average person, but to one who is in the kow of these htigns, that is acutlaly quiet small in a porject like the Bible. Many modern translations, such as the NIV, have 10'000 such errors.

Further, Not all the errors on the page you listed are errors.

An example woudl be the first oen they claim...

"Genesis 1:2 should read "And the earth became without form . . ." The word translated "was" is hayah, and denotes a condition different than a former condition, as in Genesis 19:26."

Yet even the Modern, CATHOLIC Biles render it the same was as the KJV

I havent any o those at hand, but here are a few others.

2 And the earth was waste and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep: and the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters (ASV)

2 The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. (NKJV)

2 And the earth was void and empty, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God moved over the waters. (Doubey Rheims.)

2 Now the earth was formless and empty. Darkness was on the surface of the deep. God`s Spirit was hovering over the surface of the waters. {World English}

Obviosouly, thee shcolars behind these Bibles make the same error.

Other errors that arent errors are as follows.

Leviticus 16:8, 10, 26 in the KJV is "scapegoat" which today has the connotation of someone who is unjustly blamed for other's sins. The Hebrew is Azazel, which means "one removed or separated." The Azazel goal represents Satan, who is no scapegoat. He is guilty of his part in our sins.

Suffer what it means today, one cannot roject the MODERN meanign onto the past, and the King James translators can hardly be liable for not anticipatign modern speaxch patterns and how they changed.

Deuteronomy 24:1, "then let him" should be "and he." As the Savior explained in Matthew 19, Moses did not command divorcement. This statute is regulating the permission of divorce because of the hardness of their hearts.

This is just semantic wordplay, and again a case of dated language, not shotty translation.

Many of the errors on the site ytou listed arent errors at all, and htose htta are are few. I never said it was perfect, only that it was amongst the better trnaslations.

I will post a detialed review next week, but as for now, I ask yoyu not to be so swift to judge.

Especially your comment about them not being expers on a language they trnaslated, as htis is simpley not so, all of the translators where well versed in either Hebrew or Greek, and many in both.

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

I am not a scripture scholar. I have been following your discussion and also found this site, that had an interesting paper on the topic from a Catholic perspective. I especially like the story at the end of the article: Billy Graham was once asked which Bible version is the best. "The one you read," he replied.

This link is: Choosing a Bible Translation

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), January 18, 2004.

Hi, Zarove

In your orginal post,"...Now, my proposal, this is just to ask.."

And after PAUL M. posted to your question, you said,".. Paul, be fair, 3000 errors, to be blunt isn't much.."

I think Paul was being fair. To be blunt, you didn't like his answer. If you ask a question and say,".this is just to ask.." and someone answers your question(like Paul) than why do you tell him to"be fair"

What do you mean by,"be fair"? If you are just asking? Did you have an answer that you wanted someone to give you in advance?

I am just asking.:-)

-- - (David@excite.com), January 18, 2004.

When I say Be fair, I mean be fair in your objections. 3000 errors sint unusual for any Bible translation, his statement here makes it seem, however, that the KJV is somehow radiclalt flawed beyoind the scope pf others, when in fact, it has fewer flaws than most modern Translations.

The King James Bible has undergove serious attacks in these last few years, and most of the critisism of this work is undeserving. I mean, relaly, Paul also said that the tranlators wherent experts in the language which "They where trying to translate." This is Patently false.

Rather or not you like my idea is irrelevant, but I will object to undue critisism. One should ask how much of a percent of the KJV is flawed, NOT simpley list the number of errors, for most peopel dont realise that 3000 errors arent much and will make the mistake, as Emily did, that this means that the King James is TERRIBLEY flawed, even withhte admission that most of the errors ar ein Punctuation. ( And as a result, queastiobmnable anyway.) But the number 3000 conjureds in the head of such people that ar euninformed somehign that is simpley not true.

Percentagewise, the KJV is only between 3 and 8% flawed, dependign on who you ask. Thats not a heck of a lot, and doesnt even sound bad, but if you cite a spacific, large number, sich as 3000 people tend to assume 50% or better of the text is unreliable.

Likewise, the site he posted that showed the errors of the KJVV didnt list pnly errors, but often listend things they got fright, and either seem strange because of Dated language, or else isnt a flaw recognised by Most Bible translators.

If he had raised legitimate concerns, then I wouldnt mind. But he didn't.

The two things that are bad about the King James Bible are that the defenders of it sometimes go overboard, and assume that it is the ONLY Bible in English to be read, whereas the detractors, like Paul, offer unjust critissism.

I am not even opposed to revision of the text to eliminate the errors of the text, but Nor do I say their are none, what I do say is that this Bible is LESS flawed than many Modern translations, such as the NIV, or the CEV.

A simple revision, and it owudl be all the better.

Add the Deuterocannonicals into it, and it can be enjoyed by all.

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

IN FACT.Their are 31102 Verses in the King James Bible. With 3000 contested Verses, this stll leave the overwhelmong majority correct.

The number of accurate verses is 28102.

Further, Paul ADMITTED that many of the errors where mere puncruation and spelling, which arent really errors as such things wherent standardised back in the "Good old days" of 1611.

As I illustrated, some of the errors that he listed arent even errors, the acutal number of flaws comes closer to 1500 to 900 flaws, depending on the scholar used.

This is well below the level most people assume, and the large number of flaws is offset byt he even LARGER number of accurate verses.

And that number can be reduces still farther if we did a simple revision.

The King James Bible, translated directly frrom the Origional Languages, is an excellent Bible, as good as any modern Bible, and in many ways superior to most.

All I ask is to treat it more fairly, and see it less as a bad translation that only a fool woudl use, and as a viable translation.

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

Zarove,

This is just a guess, but I think that Catholics would be far more likely to use a translation that is officially Catholic, since that would mean that the Church approved of all its contents. I'm not saying that only a fool would use it, but I do think the philosophies of some of the extremists who support it are misguided (eg. that it is the only infallible English translation and that all others are evil - some people really believe that God intervened and made this translation infallible just as he inspired the apostles who originally wrote the Bible. Where they get this idea, I'm not sure.) Anyway, I think many (most?) of the negative reactions toward the KJV stems from the fact that many go to the opposite extreme. You do have some good ideas, and perhaps from a Protestant perspective, it is a reliable translation. However, from a Catholic perspective, why not go with one that the Church officially approved of its contents (eg. DRV).

God bless,

-- Emily (jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), January 18, 2004.

Extremeism is a problem wihte Kingg James Bible, it izs also ionic, since morst of it stems form traditionalism, and most protestants who are opposed to Catholisism on those groudn and yet make these claims of the KJV are hemselves traditionalists.

I simpley dotn wan tot loose the majestrial language, and want it recogniosed as a good translation.

Thouhg not flaweless, but this is what revisions are for.

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

Hi all,

I think this ZAROVE guys opinion on what is good writing and what is bad writing is not vary creditable, just look at his writing. Just my observation…

-- someone (me @someone.com), January 18, 2004.

give him a break, not everyone knows perfect english like you.

-- jr (none@nowhere.com), January 18, 2004.

Actually, I am dyslexic. I can speak english just fine, I jujst cant proof read my posts... But its nice to see cheap shots are still available...

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

zarove, are you catholic?

-- jr (none@nowhere.com), January 18, 2004.

someone (me @someone.com) said, "I think this ZAROVE guys opinion on what is good writing and what is bad writing is not vary creditable, just look at his writing. Just my observation..."

If you expect everyone to use perfect grammar and spelling, perhaps you should work on it yourself! Errors that you made here alone:

1. "Zarove guys opinion" should read "Zarove guy's opinion" 2. Your usage of "vary" should read "very" 3. "creditable" is the incorrect form of the word, which should actually read "credible" 4. You used a run-on sentence, so your comma after "creditable" should actually be a semicolon or period to begin a new phrase.

Stop expecting standards of others that you cannot live up to yourself. I don't usually criticize people for grammatical/spelling errors, because they probably can't help it. But when someone like you is this inconsiderate, that is what I consider to be the greater wrong than a simple spelling problem.

-- anonymous (anonymous@anonymous.com), January 19, 2004.

jr,

Zarove has mentioned that he is a member of the "Church of Christ" denomination of Protestantism. He is not yet a Catholic, but some of us are praying for him to become one, because he appears to be on the "journey."

-- sr (nonealso@nowhere.com), January 19, 2004.

sr, isn't the CoC the protestant cult that thinks anyone using musical instruments is going ot hell?

-- jr (none@nowhere.com), January 19, 2004.

I've encountered a person from the Church of Christ denomination who is SO anti-Catholic. He presented many anti-Catholic documents from the C of C. I'm surprised Zarove doesn't sound so anti-Catholic at all.

-- III (III@III.III), January 19, 2004.

i thought he was catholic. i only thought this because others weren't insulting him as much as faith or emerald.

-- jr (none@nowhere.com), January 19, 2004.

Karl Keating was once asked on Catholic Answers Radio if the KJV could receive an Imprimator. His comments basically said the KJV is a fairly accurate version, but has never been submitted for an Imprimator. He then went on to say there were a few cases that verses were changed to give it more of a Protestant slant, but overall the translation was pretty accurate.

Just thought I would put that out there. I didn't tape the show, nor remember when it was broadcast, but that is what I understood him to say.

-- Glenn (glenn@nospam.com), January 19, 2004.

I think that the King James is one of the best translations. Unlike Modern ones, their is no attempt at Gender Neutral wordin g, the Thee's and Thous are oht quiet and acurate, s ancient Hebrew and Greek had diffeent nouns for You singular and You group, and it wasnt as infected by Modrn "Denominationalism."

As tot he Church of Christ, they dotn beleiv eiN Instrumental Music, because such is proportedly Not in the scriptures for us to use. They dotn condemn you to Hell for it though... and I dont agree withthe Churhc of Christ 100% anyway. But its not a Cult, just a Fundamentalist group.

DFurther, rathr or not your encouter was wiht a Church of Christ member, the Chruch itsself is decentralised, with no central office, theirfure, their is no real "Church of Christ"DDOcumentaiton agaisnt other Churches... Not that I am aware of anyway...

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), January 19, 2004.

"its not a Cult, just a Fundamentalist group"

hehe, Even Worse!

-- jr (none@nowhere.com), January 19, 2004.

There is a difference between the Church of Christ (http://www.church- of-christ.org/), the United Church of Christ (http://www.ucc.org/), and the International Churches of Christ (http://www.icoc.org/icocmain/index_new.htm). The ICOC is the cult one, and the others are just like a regular Protestant church, to my knowledge.

Here (http://www.cultsoncampus.com/newsonicoc.html) is some information about the cult one and their aggressive "evangelism" techniques on college campuses. Zarove, which one is your church? If it is the ICOC, get out ASAP. I have read some bad things about them from reputable Protestant sources, such as Focus on the Family (http://www.boundless.org/2002_2003/features/a0000657.html).

God bless,

-- Emily (jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), January 19, 2004.

Just Church of Christ, not International Church iof Christ...

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), January 20, 2004.

http://church-of-christ.org/who.html#plea

I beleive this answers the queatsion.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), January 20, 2004.

there were a few cases that verses were changed to give it more of a Protestant slant

The verses that were changed in the KJV were most likely the CRUCIAL verses like "Hail Mary, Full of Grace."

-- D (D@H.T), January 20, 2004.

Nope, the King James Bible said this...

lUKE 1:28. And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.

Not "Hihly Favoured" but "Full of Grace."

Just like the Catholic Bibles...

And in fact, like Most Bibles till rlatively recently...

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), January 20, 2004.

I meant not favoured one.

-- z (z@z.z), January 20, 2004.

"The Spirit of the LORD spake by me, and His Word was in my tongue"(2 Samuel 23:2); I have put My Words in thy mouth"(Jeremiah 1:9); "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God"(2 Timothy 3:16);"Holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost"(2 Peter 1:21). "The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever."(Psalms 12:6-7) God promised to preserve his word "for ever" and God cannot lie, so why would he not preserve his word if he said he would. There exists an infallible Word of God, God has promised us this, in every generation it will be there. The real question is to which family of manuscripts you believe that infallible Word of God to belong to. You have basically the Textus Receptus, which comprises of roughly 5,000 manuscripts which cover 80-90% of the manuscripts out there. Then you have the Vatican which covers roughly 5-10% of the manuscripts out there. God's word is without errors and I believe that to be the KJV. For those of you that want to do your own research into the greek and hebrew roots you should check out www.E- Sword.net and you'll see that most of the arguments people bring up about verses being wrong are a load of crap. They just simply don't understand what the scripture is trying to say.

A little history of the KJV translation: Fifty-four men, including High Churchmen and Puritans, the greatest Hebrew and Greek scholars of the age, formed six companies to undertake the task. Using their greek sources and the best commentaries of European scholars, and referring to Bibles in Spanish, Italian, French and German, they expressed the sense of the Greek in clear, vigorous and idiomatic English. The men that translated this started learning Greek and Hebrew at age 5, they got into college at age 12 taking their entrance exams in Greek. They spoke to each other in Seminary in Greek and Hebrew, noone of the present day could come close to their skill. They're whole life was based on this, they had no tvs, no internet, they read the bible in Greek and Hebrew as a hobby most likely! To say that they had no skill is just outright wrong. They had the Catholic text and the Vatican manuscripts when they made the KJV but they rejected them.

The KJV has stood for 400 years with much testing, and every contradiction or error brought to light has been thoroughly answered.

-- LISTEN TO ME (youshouldlovetruth@learn.com), February 07, 2004.

Too bad you are wrong, "LISTEN-TO-ME." Hundreds of far greater experts on the KJV than you are -- including eminent Protestant clergy and laity (even the former Anglican bishop of London, England) -- have abandoned that very imperfect Bible version and have become Catholics in the last 40 years. And all of those brilliant Greek/Hebrew scholars you praised were, in the end, members of a heretical eccesial community -- one that did not even have the right number of divinely inspired Old Testament books (a point far more important than the number of translation errors they made).

-- (Use@Catholic.Bibles), February 07, 2004.

ACTIUALLY, as I have repeatedly said, the KJV actually DOES possess the Deuterocannonical books in it... Just not in kost Extant editions.

As tot he fac that the KJV IS deeply flaws, the flaws shwon on this thread earlier where hsown , htough not thougouly , not to be as extensive as one claims.

Again, oen must take into account the two line sof transmission, and the actual content. The KJV Rates rather high as a Lieteral translation, with few errors. The most common in use Bible of today, the NIC, is infiriot tot he KJV By and large on a greater extent than the KJV Is infiriot to any modrn Bibles.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), February 07, 2004.

Mr. Z -- Please read what my message ACTUALLY says. Don't jump to conclusions! Notice how the following sentence of mine does NOT say that the KJV originally was missing the deuterocanonical books ~~~~~

And all of those brilliant Greek/Hebrew scholars you praised were, in the end, members of a heretical eccesial community -- one that did not even have the right number of divinely inspired Old Testament books

See it now? I said that the "members of a heretical ecclesial community" (the Anglicans) "did not" "have the right number of divinely inspired Old Testament books." I didn't say that they didn't print them all. But they told their fellow Anglicans that the books were not inspired by God and that what they taught need not be believed. This was wrong, dead wrong! And that was my point. They could be fine scholars in one ares, but failures in something more important.

-- (Use@Catholic.Bibles), February 08, 2004.