1611 King James

  • Thread starter Thread starter Chris_LaRock
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Chris LaRock:
Do Catholics veiw the KJV with hostility? (as I veiw the NWT, in other words - as inacurrate, altered, and biased.)
Click to expand...
I don’t viewit with any hostility. Honestly I’d rather read and recommend the KJV than the NAB which is recommended by the bishops of the US.

However, with Catholic versions available I’d recommend those to others before I’d recommend the KJV. I prefer my bible to be translated from a Catholic point of view.

I will say that out of the bibles I regularly use I usually first of all use the DRB, then the RSV-CE followed by the Jerusalem bible. I also keep my KJV within reach and I don’t hesitate to use it along with my Catholic versions. It’s the version that I first knew and it is where I first was exposed to my Lord. I have a place in my heart for that translation, probably mainly just an emotional nostalgia.

I like my KJV to have all the books of the bible though. I have a reprint of the 1611 that I use that does have all the books plus some extra non canonical books. Unfortunately, the KJV has some of the old testament books listed as apocrypha and lumps them with apocryphal books calling them uninspired… It is also still possible to buy the KJV with all the books today without having to get a reprint of the 1611. The 1611 reprint is just fun to use with the interesting spellings and such that they used.
 
40.png
AugustineFL:
Yes, the Douay-Rheims was used by the translators of the KJV…however the Challoner version of the Douay-Rheims then borrowed from the KJV.

So our original Douay-Rheims helped out the protestants in their translating and then their KJV helped us out when Bishop Challoner revised the Douay-Rheims.

That is exactly why I don’t recommend the KJV to anyone as a bible of choice. I actually have KJV that contains the deuterocanonicals and some apocryphal books; but even with all the books of the bible I wouldn’t recommend it for a Catholic bible study or devotional purposes.

I was raised on the KJV so I retain some attachment to it; but I rejoice that I’ve found the Church and now have the full bible.
Click to expand...
 
Chris LaRock:
Do Catholics veiw the KJV with hostility?..QUOTE]I have never seen anyone angry at it. I myself use it from time to time. Of course, you do have to learn a foriegn, dead language to use it correctly.

The only Bible I know that is seriously wrong or missleading is the Wacthtower version. The Geneva Bible has some bad parts too. Yet, both of these Bibles still can lead you to God. Just on a somewhat longer path.

Give the Protestant publishers a few more years and the desire to sell Bibles for proffit to anyone that wants one to support their opinion. A really bad one will be published for proffit.

Thank God the Catholic Church preserves Gods Word in its truth.
Click to expand...
 
40.png
AugustineFL:
I don’t viewit with any hostility. Honestly I’d rather read and recommend the KJV than the NAB which is recommended by the bishops of the US.
Click to expand...
One thing I didn’t like about the NAB was how it replaced ‘blessed’ with ‘happy’ in the beatitudes. (something many modern bibles do :mad: )
 
Chris LaRock:
One thing I didn’t like about the NAB was how it replaced ‘blessed’ with ‘happy’ in the beatitudes. (something many modern bibles do :mad: )
Click to expand...
I’m curous what edition of the NAB you have? The 1886 edition I have says “Blessed”.
Do Catholics veiw the KJV with hostility?
Click to expand...
Depends on the catholic I suppose. I am fond of the NKJV, Scofield, not particularly.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene
 
Some interesting information at the following website:

catholicapologetics.net/00002kjv.htm

Caution: The web-master is a radical “traditionalist”:

THE KING JAMES VERSION

http://www.catholicapologetics.net/images/0000bar.gif

In this section we have over a HUNDRED articles dealing with the King James Version, this is the largest Catholic source of information to this still very popular Protestant translation of the sacred scriptures. We have broken these articles in to eight sections:
[The Canon of The 1611 King James Version](L'apologie chrétienne dans les jeux vidéos - On les appelle les easter eggs et ils sont partout, même dans les jeux PS4 Canon of The 1611 King James Version:):
 
I recently got a hold of a replica of the original 1611 King James. How neat! The spellings are different than any bible I’ve ever seen. Early English had few official spellings for words, so some words are rendered differently throughout the bible.
 
Chris LaRock:
I recently got a hold of a replica of the original 1611 King James. How neat! The spellings are different than any bible I’ve ever seen. Early English had few official spellings for words, so some words are rendered differently throughout the bible.
Click to expand...
I have one of those…it’s fun reading.
 
40.png
AugustineFL:
I have one of those…it’s fun reading.
Click to expand...
I’m guessing that the 1611 edition would be more accepted by Catholics, since it has the Apocrypha in it.
 
Chris LaRock:
I’m guessing that the 1611 edition would be more accepted by Catholics, since it has the Apocrypha in it.
Click to expand...
I own a KJV bible and 4 Catholic bibles. Often when I am studying something for an apologetic answer I will refer to the KJV and the Catholic editions at the same time.

One major point is that the KJV Old Testament is based on the “Hebrew” scriptures, whereas the Catholic editions are based on the Greek “Septuagint”. It can be proven that Jesus and the apostles quoted from the Septuagint version, not the Hebrew version. So right here, why would you wan’t to base your readings on a version different then what Christ and the apostles used?

The thing that bothers me about the KJV is that there are very subtle differences in some of the translations. For instance in the old testament, (I forget where), it says “…he sold everything to buy grains and wine”. Whereas the Catholic version says "…he sold everything to buy “bread and wine”. To me this is an obvious prophecy of the eucharist, but this prophetic direction is missed in the KJV. Also the KJV very conveniently uses the word “begat”, in the New Testament, whereas the Catholic versions use the word “father”, for instance St. Pauls writings where he says something like I am your Father in the Gospel. The KJV says I begat you in the gospel. This is an obvious attempt to enforce their belief that calling priests “father” is not allowed.

There are others, but this enough for now.

Chipper
 
I imagine that a Catholic would want to use some other translation as his primary Bible, but the KJV deserves a place on the shelf. No doubt it has errors, but nowhere near as many as some purveyors of modern translations would have one believe. Not intending to give aid & comfort to the KJV-only dervishes, but there are a few places where its renderings of scripture are better and more persuasive than many a 20th-century translation. Plus, sometimes style is substance–when sacred scripture is made to read like a business memo, something’s lost (are you listening, NIV?). Fr. Neuhaus once said that King James’ men did sometimes have their problems with Hebrew, Aramaic, & Greek, whereas the language that seems to confound many modern translators is English.

At any rate, the Authorised Version is now part of the fabric of our language, along with Shakespeare’s works. In fact, I’d go so far as to say that someone who does not know his King James Bible, and know it well, does not qualify as fully literate in English. One always profits by comparing several translations, and the KJV should at least be one of them.
 
40.png
Chipper:
The thing that bothers me about the KJV is that there are very subtle differences in some of the translations. For instance in the old testament, (I forget where), it says “…he sold everything to buy grains and wine”. Whereas the Catholic version says "…he sold everything to buy “bread and wine”. To me this is an obvious prophecy of the eucharist, but this prophetic direction is missed in the KJV.
Chipper
Click to expand...
That reminds me of something. The NWT, in Psalm 22:16, mistranslated an obvious prophecy of Jesus’ crucifixion - “…they pierced my hands and feet.”, rendering it, “…they are at my hands and feet.”

The ancient Jews would sprinkle the blood of the lamb on an alter, and eat some of the meat. I’d like to point out that these were the literal body and blood of that lamb, and not merely representations of it - transtabstantiation! (spelling?)
 
Chris LaRock:
I’m guessing that the 1611 edition would be more accepted by Catholics, since it has the Apocrypha in it.
Click to expand...
Having the apocrypha in it doesn’t really make it any more acceptable to me. It’s the only bible I have that has any of the old testament Apocrypha in it (3rd & 4th Esdras, or 1st and 2nd depending on how you number them, and the Prayer of Manasseh). I don’t have a single Catholic bible that includes the Apocrypha.

More important than the Apocrypha it includes the full old testament cannon without removing books like most modern protestant bibles do. Unfortunately the translators incorrectly moved some of the books and parts of others to be with the Apocryphal books I mentioned above.
 
I never heard of a Catholic bible that didn’t have the apocrypha in it. That’s the chief difference between Catholic and Protestant bibles, right?
 
Chris LaRock:
I never heard of a Catholic bible that didn’t have the apocrypha in it. That’s the chief difference between Catholic and Protestant bibles, right?
Click to expand...
No. It sounds like you may be calling canonical books apocrypha. Apocrypha are not inspired by God.

The chief difference between Catholic and Protestant bibles is that the Catholic bible has the full canon and the protestant bible is missing some of the inspired scriptures. If Martin Luther had his way even more would be missing from the Protestant bible!

The following books are the complete full old Testament cannon. None of these books are Apocrypha. Protestant bibles usually do not have the ones I bolded below; if they do they usually relegate them to a section called “Apocrypha” even though that term is NOT correct for them. An acceptable term to the books that differ is deuterocanonical. An example of apocryphal old testament book would be 1 (3) Esdras and 2 (4 ) Esdras. Note that there are different names and numbering systems for some of the same books. For example 1 Esdras AKA Ezra and 1 Esdras AKA 3 Esdras are not the same books. The first is considered canonical by protestants and Catholics, the second is considered apocryphal by both and is not found in any bible I have save for a 1611 KJV I have.

Genesis
Exodus
Leviticus
Numbers
Deuteronomy
Joshua (Josue)
Judges
Ruth
1 Samuel (1 Kings)
2 Samuel (2 Kings)
1 Kings (3 Kings)
2 Kings (4 Kings)
1 Chronicles (1 Paralipomenon)
2 Chronicles (2 Paralipomenon)
Ezra (1 Esdras)
Nehemiah (2 Esdras)
Tobit (Tobias)
Judith
Esther
Job Psalms
Proverbs
Ecclesiastes
Song of Solomon (Canticle of Canticles)
The Wisdom of Solomon (Wisdom)
Sirach (Ecclesiasticus)
Isaiah (Isaias)
Jeremiah (Jeremias)
Lamentations
Baruch
Ezekiel (Ezechiel)
Daniel
Hosea (Osee)
Joel
Amos
Obadiah (Abdias)
Jonah (Jonas)
Micah (Michaes)
Nahum
Habakkuk (Habacuc)
Zephaniah (Sophonias)
Haggai (Malachias)
1 Maccabees (1 Machabees)
2 Maccabees (2 Machabees)

To remove any of the above books is to remove Holy Scripture from the bible. In addition to the removal of those there are parts of other old testament books we hold in common with protestants that they removed as well. Luther actually wanted to remove more books from the New Testament such as the epistle of St. James because it didn’t agree with his theology!

I was glad to get the entire bible back when I discovered the Catholic Church 😃
 
AugustineFL said:
The 1611 reprint is just fun to use with the interesting spellings and such that they used.
Click to expand...
Oh, I love that! 😃 It’s cool because I have no problem reading it even with those spellings. I also like the fancy lettering at the beginning of each chapter and the Roman numerals for the chapters of the books and numbers of the Psalms. It is a very pretty Bible (with pretty language, but then again, I love Shakespeare).
 
The old English does have a poetic beauty that is lost in modern translations. I like both the JKV, and the DRB.

I actually have a Luther Bible…in German! I can make out what a lot of it says, but a lot is still a mystery to me.😃
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top