Bible versions?

[janryboy]

hmm…dunno if this was already discussed here in CAF…

I know we, Catholics, must try to look for the iprimatur to know that the bible we are using is from a Catholic publisher.

just want to know what was first version of the bible released?

a fundamentalist told me that the KJV is the right one…he sadi this to me:

**The King James Bible, published in 1611, was also called the authorized version of the Bible translated from the original Hebrew and Greek languages into English at the request of King James I of England.

Because its translators strove for accuracy, beauty, power, and literal faithfulness to the Greek and Hebrew texts, the King James Bible has endured as one of the most beloved translations for centuries. In fact, it was unrivaled up to this present day.

We have had to study this great Version carefully and minutely, line by line; and the longer we have been engaged upon it the more we have learned to admire its simplicity, its dignity, its power, its happy turns of expression, its general accuracy, and, we must not fail to add, the music of its cadences, and the felicities of its rhythm.

The King James Bible is still found in many homes and churches today, and it is living proof that the beauty and inerrancy of God’s Word has been safeguarded over the centuries.**

 

[tparsons]

Interesting…I thought The Douay Rheims predated the KJV.

 

[Veritas41]

There were English versions of the Bible long before the King James Bible. Having been around many KJV-only Christians, their biggest concern seems to be the influence of modernism on newer translations of the Bible. Some new translations are dreadful (especially those that use gender-inclusive terminology),or are just paraphrases that reflect the interpretive bias of those who do the paraphrasing, but there are good modern translations. The RSV is a good translation and there is a Catholic edition of the Bible in that translation published by Ignatius Press, an orthodox Catholic publishing company

 

[Fidelis]

Interesting…I thought The Douay Rheims predated the KJV.

It did – by about a generation. In fact, it was used as one of the references for the 1611 KJV.

It sounds like the OP is dealing with a “King James - onlyist” - one who believes that the KJV has almost inspired status and all other translations are inherently inferior and even blasmephous.

(Before you laugh, keep in mind there are also Catholic “Douay-Rhiem-onlyist” who believe pretty much the same thing about the DRV.)

As an earlier poster pointed out, the KJV (or even the DRV) was not the first English Bible --let alone the first Bible of any kind – to be published. If you want to read a thorough treatment of this, get ahold of Henry Graham’s powerful little book “Where We Got The Bible” Available from Catholic Answers.

 

[KathleenElsie]

It did – by about a generation. In fact, it was used as one of the references for the 1611 KJV.

It sounds like the OP is dealing with a “King James - onlyist” - one who believes that the KJV has almost inspired status and all other translations are inherently inferior and even blasphemous.

(Before you laugh, keep in mind there are also Catholic “Douay-Rheims-onlyist” who believe pretty much the same thing about the DRV.)

As an earlier poster pointed out, the KJV (or even the DRV) was not the first English Bible --let alone the first Bible of any kind – to be published. If you want to read a thorough treatment of this, get a hold of Henry Graham’s powerful little book “Where We Got The Bible” Available from Catholic Answers.

I use the DRV to refute the KJV. And yes the KJV did use the DRV as one of it resources. The differing versions of the Protestant bibles which have an explanation as to their beliefs and why their version is the perfectly translated one. Most will even point out the errors in footnotes to other versions.

 

[Holly3278]

King James Bible onlyists really get on my nerves. We have a church nearby who has a major issue about Bible versions. They believe that only the King James Version should be used. I frankly strongly disagree with this. Of course these people are also Fundamentalists.

 

[Timidity]

just want to know what was first version of the bible released?

St. Jerome’s Latin Vulgate (early 5th Century) would be the first single-compilation Bible, wouldn’t it? (The Vetus Latin being older, but lacking unity).

If you mean English Bible, then it would be Wyclif’s Bible in the late 14th Century. Of course, that “English” wasn’t quite the same as what we speak (“Ihesus seith to him, I am weye truthe and liif: no man cometh to the fadir, but bi me. If ye hadden knowe me, sothli ye hadden knowe also my fadir: and aftirwarde ye schuln knowe him, and ye han seen hym.”)

If you mean “Early Modern English” (still not quite what we speak today, but it’s more readable) then it would probably be Tydale in the early 16th Century.

If you mean “Early Modern English translation still in semi-wide use”, then that would be the Douay Old Testament (1610) combined with the Rheims New testament (1582). However this translation was massively revised by Bishop Challoner in 1752.

Of course the modern KJV is not the original, either, but itself a 1769 revision (by Benjamin Blayney of Oxford).

 

[tparsons]

St. Jerome’s Latin Vulgate (early 5th Century) would be the first single-compilation Bible, wouldn’t it? (The Vetus Latin being older, but lacking unity).

If you mean English Bible, then it would be Wyclif’s Bible in the late 14th Century. Of course, that “English” wasn’t quite the same as what we speak (“Ihesus seith to him, I am weye truthe and liif: no man cometh to the fadir, but bi me. If ye hadden knowe me, sothli ye hadden knowe also my fadir: and aftirwarde ye schuln knowe him, and ye han seen hym.”)

If you mean “Early Modern English” (still not quite what we speak today, but it’s more readable) then it would probably be Tydale in the early 16th Century.

If you mean “Early Modern English translation still in semi-wide use”, then that would be the Douay Old Testament (1610) combined with the Rheims New testament (1582). However this translation was massively revised by Bishop Challoner in 1752.

Of course the modern KJV is not the original, either, but itself a 1769 revision (by Benjamin Blayney of Oxford).

Very good post and informative.
Thanks!

 

[lak611]

St. Jerome’s Latin Vulgate (early 5th Century) would be the first single-compilation Bible, wouldn’t it? (The Vetus Latin being older, but lacking unity).

If you mean English Bible, then it would be Wyclif’s Bible in the late 14th Century. Of course, that “English” wasn’t quite the same as what we speak (“Ihesus seith to him, I am weye truthe and liif: no man cometh to the fadir, but bi me. If ye hadden knowe me, sothli ye hadden knowe also my fadir: and aftirwarde ye schuln knowe him, and ye han seen hym.”)

If you mean “Early Modern English” (still not quite what we speak today, but it’s more readable) then it would probably be Tydale in the early 16th Century.

If you mean “Early Modern English translation still in semi-wide use”, then that would be the Douay Old Testament (1610) combined with the Rheims New testament (1582). However this translation was massively revised by Bishop Challoner in 1752.

Of course the modern KJV is not the original, either, but itself a 1769 revision (by Benjamin Blayney of Oxford).

I have a 1611 edition KJV. The English is much different in that one. Here’s John 14:6-7, “Iesus saith vnto him, I am the Way, the Trueth, and the Life: no man commeth vnto the Father but by mee. If ye had knowen me, ye should haue knowen my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and haue seene him.”

 

[Spirithound]

My offering is a clause by clause commentary on the KJV-onlyist argument.

The King James Bible, published in 1611, was also called the authorized version of the Bible translated from the original Hebrew and Greek languages into English at the request of King James I of England.
Authorized by who? The king of England, who really, has not ecclesiastic authority at all (if you really want to smear his character, do a bit of research, it’s not that hard)

Because its translators strove for accuracy, beauty, power, and literal faithfulness to the Greek and Hebrew texts,

isn’t this the whole point of translation? No honest translator strives for ugly, convoluted prose with a marginal resemblance to the 3rd-generation Swahili translation.

the King James Bible has endured as one of the most beloved translations for centuries.

subjective claim

In fact, it was unrivaled up to this present day.

Perhaps, maybe in his corner of the earth, but what about the 1600 years Christianity managed to survive before it?

We have had to study this great Version carefully and minutely, line by line;

an admirable goal

and the longer we have been engaged upon it the more we have learned to admire its simplicity, its dignity, its power, its happy turns of expression, its general accuracy, and, we must not fail to add, the music of its cadences, and the felicities of its rhythm.

subjective claim

The King James Bible is still found in many homes and churches today,

not my home or church

and it is living proof that the beauty and inerrancy of God’s Word has been safeguarded over the centuries.

subjective claim.

When you’re confronted with this kind of argument, learn to identify subjective claims. Those are the opinion statements. Question whether a certain noun deserves the adjectives that are being attached to it.

 

[janryboy]

When you’re confronted with this kind of argument, learn to identify subjective claims. Those are the opinion statements. Question whether a certain noun deserves the adjectives that are being attached to it.

yes! thanks for the advise…

Shalom!

janry

 

[Spirithound]

not my home or church

oops…i forgot i recently bought the KJV for an English lit class