Well. That escalated quickly.
My Bible app has an icon that says Holy Bible, but it has about 60 different versions included. I primarily read the Contemporary English Version because it’s easy, but my Recently Used include The Message and KJV.
But I still don’t see it as terribly problematic to point out that debates on biblical canon existed long before KJV.
Can you expand on that? How is it anachronistic?
I suspect I know the origin of the OP’s claim regarding the Wycliffe version. As many Dopers undoubtedly know, there are some books which are accepted by Catholics as being part of the Bible, but which are not accepted by most protestants. Bibles published by Catholics thus generally include those books, while bibles published by protestants generally don’t. If one starts from the premise that those books are genuinely biblical, then that would mean that the protestant versions are incomplete.
The Wycliffe version is a Catholic bible, and so includes these books. Now, it is not the only Catholic bible (or even the only Catholic bible in English), but it is the only Catholic bible that’s in the public domain. As a result, compilations of Bible versions such as biblegateway will often include the Wycliffe, but not any other Catholic bible. So a person browsing through biblegateway and looking through the various versions they have available might notice that there are some books which are found in the Wycliffe but not in any other version, and might therefore conclude that the Wycliffe is the only complete one.
While the word catholic, meaning universal, has been used by Christians to denote one of the important marks of the church since the second century, the phrase “Catholic Church,” today, generally indicates the church organized around the pope in Rome. That usage dates to the split between the eastern and western churches, with the eastern churches asserting that they were orthodox in their teachings, (as opposed to what they perceived to be the heresies of the western church). Both eastern and western churches will assert that they are both catholic and orthodox, but used as a label, today, “Catholic Church” is anachronistic when applied to the fourth century. One can certainly find references to the catholic church in writings of the the third through fifth centuries, but when tossed out by someone who has already demonstrated a lack of knowledge regarding the history of the church, it is more likely that it was used in the current sense, anachronistically.
Bible versions will assert specific denominational doctrines. Ever notice that?
The Knox Version translation for the book of Amos is very powerful.
I had spoken with an Anglican gentleman who said that he was Catholic too and further explained that it had something to do with the ecumenical councils.