Bible differences in the "Word of God"... Non-Catholic Christians, please explain this. The King James Version Bible (KJV) vs. the Catholic Bible (N

[JRRTFAN]

I think that’s the summary answer. The KJV is limited to the scholarship and sources extant in the 17th century.

Also, the translators were motivated to make a Bible that is pleasant-sounding to the English ear. And the KJV is undoubtedly that - indeed, it has contributed more idioms to the English language than any other source (even Shakespeare).

I know some Protestants who use it out of tradition or for the beauty of its language, but they would pull out better translations for study and scholarship. It’s not like Protestants are ignorant of the KJV’s shortcomings.

I agree. One of the failings I had when I started into a deeper analysis of the faith 20 years ago was presuming that Protestants releid on the KJV exclusively. WHile some do, the large majority use moder versions which are translations of the Nestle Aland Greek texts, the same ones the NAB uses.

 

[Izdaari]

I agree. One of the failings I had when I started into a deeper analysis of the faith 20 years ago was presuming that Protestants releid on the KJV exclusively. WHile some do, the large majority use moder versions which are translations of the Nestle Aland Greek texts, the same ones the NAB uses.

This Protestant (meaning non-Catholic, non-Orthodox Christian) never relied mainly on the KJV, because I never liked its archaic language. My first adult Bible was the RSV, and later the NASB. Now I have a Bible collection consisting of many translations, including the KJV and the Douay-Rheims. On any given Sunday, I might carry any of them to church with me, but my favorite is the ESV.

 

[JRRTFAN]

Frankly, I don’t consider it important, but many Catholics do. They often accuse Protestants of deliberately leaving out seven OT books.

As far as I'm concerned, some Catholics and Protestants manufacture issues with the hope of 'gotcha'. In my opinion, this contradicts the spirit of Christianity. "Think and let think" and "let us agree to agreeably disagree" are two of my favorite principles. This nonsense of assailing other Christians because they have a different perspective is silly and essentially contrary to the gospel. The first and great commandment is to love one another.   

My own view is that none of us - including no faith community - has a monopoly on spiritual truth. That belongs to God alone who is well beyond our comprehension. How can I think otherwise when I know that there may be a million solar systems out there in space? So often Christians have preached love, humility and peace while promoting prejudice, arrogance and hostility. 

Let's make religion a bridge instead of a barrier.

I agree that we should celebrate what we have in common and make use of it to improve society. I also like the idea of agreeing to disagree agreeably. All faith communities have some measure of truth, but whatever that measure is it cannot disagree with the truth revealed by God in the Holy Catholic Church. In other words, a Baptist belief that Baptism is an ordinance and not a sacrament which conveys grace is not an enrichment of the true revealed faith and is an issue that must separate us, materially, from them as that teaching may deprive someone of eteranl life.

I understand, entirely, your belief. My family members are all Evangelicals and in order to hold their position they have to believe (and do) that there is no single church which holds the entire fullness of the revealed truth. If they held that they would have to find other churches as their own communions do not subscribe to that theory.

In other words, they can never answer the question: Which church is being referred to in 1 Tim 3:15? Or: Which church is being referred to in Matt. 18:17?

There is only one Church founded by Christ and built on the Petrine office. The various communions do good things for the Lord but they do not enjoy the fullness of revelation. To that extent we have to continue to disagree agreeably.

 

[JRRTFAN]

This Protestant (meaning non-Catholic, non-Orthodox Christian) never relied mainly on the KJV, because I never liked its archaic language. My first adult Bible was the RSV, and later the NASB. Now I have a Bible collection consisting of many translations, including the KJV and the Douay-Rheims. On any given Sunday, I might carry any of them to church with me, but my favorite is the ESV.

Yes, the ESV is a revision of the RSV. I use the RSV-CE generally.

 

[Bible_Student_1]

Re Bible differences.

Exodus 22:18 KJV vs 22:18 NAB.
This is due to the difference in numbering, please compare adjoining verses.

John 3:16
KJV “shall not perish … have everlasting life”
NAB “might not perish … might have eternal life”
The KJV is more positive in this verse and the promise is a definite promise, not just a “perhaps” statement.

Acts 3:26
KJV “having raised up His Son Jesus [Christ]”
NAB “raised up His servant”
We do know that God raised up our Lord Jesus Christ after He suffered and died on the cross for us, not some unknown servant.

Acts 17:22
KJV “ye are too superstitious”
NAB “You are very religious”
The jury could well be out on this, the word translated as “superstitious” could also have been translated as “religious”.

Romans 1:25
KJV “worshipped and served”
NAB “revered and worshipped”
We are agreed on “worshipped”, I pray; but serve and revere are two different concepts, I serve my Lord as a hospital volunteer and yet I do revere Him.

1 Corinthians 1:18
KJV “preaching … are saved”
NAB “message … are being saved”
This ties in with the statement in John 3:16, We preach the Jesus Christ is crucified for us and that by His very words “It is finished”* the debt of humanity with God the Father was paid once and for all. IMHO “are saved” is the more positive Christian translation.

*It is finished “tetelestai” (Gk). the Greek word was also used to sign of on a bill after it was paid, meaning that the debt was paid, discharged.

In God’s love and service.

Bible Student