Once again, a Catholic author has attempted to discredit the English version of the Bible, the King James Version, and its followers. The methodology used is, as usual, superficial and banal. It relies on the laziness of readers and their unwillingness to concern themselves with the truth.
Inhalt / Content
King James Version – In focus
The English version of the Bible, the King James Version, is increasingly the focus of attacks. Arguments that appear harmless are “old-fashioned language, difficult to understand, not up to date”. Other voices, however, claim “incorrect translation, missing or added verses and crude forgeries”. When the arguments run out, the opponent must be attacked personally, according to an unethical “truism”. So King James I is also personally in the sights of the attackers. He is said to have had a dubious, even wicked and devious nature, and he also wrote an occult book.
The book “Daemonologie” written by King James I is presented as a promotion, almost as a guide for the persecution of witches and the use of occult practices. But if you dig a little deeper, you will find out for yourself that this book does indeed describe these practices, but not as a manual, but rather as a report about them. It would be the same as if a study researching and reporting on the practices and background of a cult were suddenly described as an instruction manual.
Even if all the accusations against King James I were true, the question would still remain as to how it might have affected the content of the King James Version. The key question is simply, “does the translation deviate from the original, i.e. the Greek and Hebrew / Aramaic original text?” The king did not actually carry out this translation himself, but commissioned it.
Hidden connections
What is usually kept secret in this context is that King James was the target of an attack, which is also known today as the “Gunpowder Plot”. The king and parliament were to be killed in a bomb attack. The initiators were arch-Catholics who wanted to eradicate Protestantism in England. The most famous figure was Guy Fawkes. Today he is celebrated in films as the “hero of the hour”. In reality, however, it was a failure, as this assassination attempt was discovered and foiled in advance.
The Spanish Armada, which was sent to overthrow the English Protestant monarchy, also failed miserably.
The real “problem”, even if attention is drawn exclusively to it, is not the translation according to the King James Version, but the underlying basic text for the Old Testament and the New Testament. For the New Testament, it is the available majority text in Greek, the Textus Receptus, and for the Old Testament, the Hebrew/Aramaic Masoretic Text. King James certainly did not write these writings, nor did he have them written. So, does the King James Version deviate from them? No! And so it is completely irrelevant what the public and private life of the English king was like.
John Wyclif – William Tyndale
John Wyclif is often used as a counterexample to the “benevolent” non-persecution of Bible translators by the Roman Catholic Church. He translated the Bible into English as early as the 14th century, but remained unmolested by the otherwise “usual” persecution of Roman Catholic persecutors. The reason is obvious. Wyclif’s translation template was the Latin Vulgate. This in turn is based largely on the Septuagint template used by Jerome. That is, the version of the Bible permeated with Gnosticism from the hands of 72 Hellenistic scribes from the Alexandria area. Thus Wyclif’s translation could only contain this Gnostic character. A Roman Catholic Bible, just in English.
In addition, the distribution of this translation was very limited. The printing press had not yet been invented. Purchasing such a Bible, written by hand, would have cost a fortune.
William Tyndale was another Englishman who translated the Bible in the 16th century, or rather began the translation. Before he had finished his work, Tyndale was killed on the orders of the Roman Catholic Church. What was the difference to Wyclif? William Tyndale did not use the Latin Vulgate as a template, but rather the Masoretic Text and Textus Receptus. In addition, the printing press had already been introduced, meaning that the Bible could be distributed quickly and cheaply. The Roman Church wanted to prevent this at all costs.
German counterparts
The German counterpart of the King James Version, which is despised by the Roman Catholic Church, is the Schlachter 2000, the “old” Elberfelder and the Luther 1912. All of these translations are based on the Masoretic Text and the Textus Receptus. All other or later translations use the “scientific-critical” texts by Nestle and Aland (Info), which in turn are based on Gnostic writings such as the Textus Sinaiticus.
Readership of the King James – “Simple”
Not only is the King James Version being targeted, but its followers are also being discredited as uneducated, simple-minded “fanboys”. The Catholic magazine “catholic.com” claims that the “KJV-only followers” are ignorant of the “process of inspiration, transmission and translation” (Source).
The Catholic magazine also uses a supposedly valid argument. The older a found copy of the scriptures is, the closer it must be to the truth. The earliest find to date is the “John Ryland Fragment” with a part of John 17 and 18. It dates to around 125 AD. The location: In the sand in Egypt, on papyrus. “The older the manuscripts are, the more likely it is that the apostles are exactly what the apostles actually wrote,” is the logic of the author in the Catholic magazine.
Inaccurate and flat
It is true that this find from around 125 AD is closer in time to the apostles than finds dated to a later time, but does this automatically apply to the truthfulness of what was written? After all, there were forgers, fantasists and, above all, Gnostics long before the birth of Christ. The stronghold was also Egypt, more precisely in the Alexandria area. There, the Masoretic text was taken, changed and expanded, and passages were also deleted. The Septuagint (LXX), which is “highly celebrated” today, is also such a hodgepodge, and already shows gross nonsense in Genesis 5. (Info).
Only the “one single” basic text?
The author of the Catholic magazine points out that the King James Version contains verses that the “original Greek text” does not contain. However, he fails to mention that these are different basic texts. This omission suggests to the reader that it must be just “the one (only)” basic text. But that is not the case. The Hellenistic Gnostics left their own basic texts in Greek in their time. The very same ones that form the basis of modern Bible translations today. Here the tables are cheekily turned. Those Hellenistic scribes added verses that of course(!) are not included in the King James Version, since it refers to the Textus Receptus. And now it is simply claimed that the King James Version deleted these verses.
As a precaution, the author concludes by repeating that “anyone who claims that these verses are definitely part of the original scriptures – and Bibles that do not contain them – are modernistic and erroneous.” This only shows ignorance of the subject.
The fact that the author suggests that there is only one original text, or that he does not point out that there are different original texts available to humanity, indicates that he did not intend to convey the truth.
The usual flat killer arguments
This is only “fair and proper” and also the habit of this Roman institution to deal with supposed killer arguments as long as their hands are still tied until they have the power to simply remove the “argument” from the “killer argument” (Info).
This subject area, which source text for which translation, is quite complex. But one should not be impressed by such outcry from the Roman Catholic Church. That is the nature of this institution, which considers itself infallible, and which not only sees itself as the successor of the apostles, but also its supreme “guru” in Rome as the personal representative of God on earth and thus worthy of worship like God. (Info).
Anyone who loves the truth will not only focus on the shallow superficialities presented by these Catholic authors, but will also want to find out for themselves what the truth really looks like. You just have to want it and do it. Depending on your own priorities in life.
And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
2 Thessalonians 2:10
Bible verses from King James Version (1611)
Deutsch
English
