Thinking Out Loud

November 19, 2010

Why You Can’t Buy a Loaf of Eggs, or Bananas

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: , , , , , , — paulthinkingoutloud @ 7:28 pm

I’m only going to say this once.

The King James Version of the Bible is an English translation.   You can’t buy The King James Version in Spanish.   You can’t buy the King James Version in French.   You can’t buy the King James Version in Italian.

It is the name given to a particular translation in English.

You can request a traditional translation.   You can request something that is not an easy-to-read translation.   You can even go on something called the Internet and find out the names of the available translations in the language you need.

But you can’t buy a King James bible in a language that isn’t English. Each language has its own unique history of Bible translation.   Each is an entirely distinct story.


  1. My parents have always been in strictly KJV only churches. He and his church were always big supporters of the Gideons; any hospital or hotel room you’ve ever been in probably had a Gideon Bible, a KJV one at that. I once pointed out to my dad that when the Gideons hand out Bibles in Mexico, they aren’t King James. I believe his response to me was “Shut up.”

    Comment by Clark Bunch — November 27, 2010 @ 11:44 pm

    • Great comment, as it highlights the fact that even a superficial knowledge of missions tends to shut down a KJV-only position.

      The Gideons here in Canada actually switched to NASB over a decade ago, maybe two decades.

      Comment by paulthinkingoutloud — November 27, 2010 @ 11:51 pm

  2. BTW the very dedicated don’t call it the King James Version, just the King James Bible. Calling it a “version” implies there could be more than one version, which they do not believe. I don’t particularly care for the NIV, but something about fundamentalists calling it the New International Perversion just rubs me the wrong way.

    Comment by Clark Bunch — November 27, 2010 @ 11:48 pm

    • There’s a great line from Augustine in the intro to the 1611 KJ which says, in effect, “There is much to be gained from a variety of translations.”

      I’ve always been told it’s in the translators’ preface, but was told recently that it may also appear — without the reference to Augustine — in a marginal note addressing alternative readings, which the 1611 had many of; which proves they weren’t convinced they were able to accurately express the meaning of some verses in a single wording.

      Comment by paulthinkingoutloud — November 28, 2010 @ 12:07 am

  3. Did you know that in 1611 the KJV contained the Apocrapha? It was later removed, but that “1611 version” fundamentalists carry around isn’t what some of them claim it is.

    Comment by Clark Bunch — December 8, 2010 @ 9:24 pm

    • Of all the ‘pet doctrines’ a person could adopt, the King James Only position is certainly the most untenable.

      Comment by paulthinkingoutloud — December 8, 2010 @ 10:44 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Your Response (Value-Added Comments Only)

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at

%d bloggers like this: