Catholic version of the Original King James Bible

[PeterMichael]

I am currently undecided in which bible to use; I was searching on line the other day, when I came across the Catholic version of the King James Bible, which has the Apocrypha. I would like hear peoples opinion of this type of bible.

                                         In Christ
                                              Peter

 

[Ron_Conte]

The KJV is usually published with the apocryphal/deuterocanonical books.

I don’t think a Catholic KJV is possible. At the time that the KJV was translated, Catholics were persecuted and sometimes put to death in England. The KJV was translated, as was the original Rheims version, with apologetics and polemics in mind.

 

[SyCarl]

The KJV is usually published with the apocryphal/deuterocanonical books.

I don’t think a Catholic KJV is possible. At the time that the KJV was translated, Catholics were persecuted and sometimes put to death in England. The KJV was translated, as was the original Rheims version, with apologetics and polemics in mind.

My understanding was that in the early English Bibles most of the controversial aspects were in the marginal notes rather than the translation itself. One of King James’ instructions was that the KJV not have such marginal notes as he took offense at those used in both existing Catholic and Protestant Bibles.

 

[Mattjolley]

To reiterate the first reply, I would like to remind the OP that the King James who commissioned the KJ Bible was the very same who, 6 years earlier, had been almost assassinated by Catholic Plotters, most famously Guy Fawkes.

To this day we celebrate it in England, however I rather prefer to celebrate the memory of the plotters, and their cause of restoring our country to a Catholic monarchy, rather than, as is the ‘norm’, celebrating their failure and subsequent gruesome deaths.

To summarise, giving a Catholic the KJV as their primary bible is like giving a protestant the Douay Rheims. I’m sure either party wouldn’t be too pleased, however similar these versions are!
BUT theres no harm in having a KJV for comparisons, as I have read some members of this forum do. I however, don’t.

Matt

 

[inthecloud]

Some people like the KJV language and if the books has the deuterocanonincals can be used but is not a Catholic authorized Bible.

 

[rlg94086]

If you like the language of the KJV, I would recommend the Douay Rheims Bible - here is an online source: www.drbo.org It is on the same “literal end of the spectrum” as the KJV, but actually predates the KJV:

The DR New Testament was first published by the English College at Rheims in 1582 A.D. The DR Old Testament was first published by the English College at Douay in 1609 A.D. The first King James Version was not published until 1611. This online DRV contains all 73 books, including the seven Deutero-Canonical books (erroneously called Apocrypha by Protestants). These seven books were included in the 1611 KJV, but not in later KJV Bibles.

Here is a good article on Bible translations:

catholic.com/thisrock/1994/9404fea1.asp

CHOOSING A BIBLE TRANSLATION
By JAMES AKIN

Between the extremes of the Concordant and the Cotton-Patch versions lies a spectrum of respectable translations which strike different balances between literal and dynamic equivalence.

Toward the literal end of the spectrum are translations such as the King James Version (KJV), the New King James Version (NKJV), the New American Standard (NAS)–all Protestant versions–and the Catholic Douay-Rheims Version. Next come less literal translations, such as the Protestant Revised Standard Version (RSV) and the Catholic Confraternity Version, the precursor to the NAB.

Then there are dynamic translations, such as the NIV and the NAB. Toward the very dynamic end of the spectrum are translations such as the Jerusalem Bible (JB), the New Jerusalem Bible (NJB), the New English Bible (NEB), the Revised English Bible (REB), the Contemporary English Version (CEV), and the “Good News Bible,” the text of which is called Today’s English Version (TEV).

A translation that is hard to place on the spectrum is the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV). The basic text of the NRSV is rendered literally, following the RSV, but the NRSV uses “gender inclusive language,” which puts the original text into a modern “gender neutral” cultural equivalent. When you read the NRSV you encounter in the text the terms “friends,” “beloved,” and “brothers and sisters” and are referred to a footnote stating “Gk [Greek] brothers.”

 

[PeterMichael]

I was searching at the website allbibles.com, I clicked on Catholic giant print bibles, I then clicked on to King James version, and it showed me the original King James Bible of 1611 complete with the Apocrypha

 

[peregrinus_sg]

Hi PeterMichael.

Just because a Bible contains all the 73 books that the Catholic Church accepts as canonical doesn’t make it a Catholic Bible. A Catholic Bible version must also be approved by the authority of the Church. I don’t think that any Catholic Bishop has granted his imprimatur to the KJV even if it included the deuterocanonical books.

 

[Devare]

I was searching at the website allbibles.com, I clicked on Catholic giant print bibles, I then clicked on to King James version, and it showed me the original King James Bible of 1611 complete with the Apocrypha

The King James Version does have many MAJOR doctrinal differences with the Douay-Rheims (at first I was stumped because they looked pretty similar), however, if you dig really deep, you’ll notice the differences (since these Bibles were just beginning to be translated into English, they ALL have their errors - but that’s okay, they are noticeable, and Holy Spirit will help you - or just pick a different translation alltogether).

The first one is an error in the KJV:

“And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.” - Exodus 3:14 (KJV)
“God said to Moses: I AM WHO AM. He said: Thus shalt thou say to the children of Israel: HE WHO IS, hath sent me to you.” - Exodus 3:14 (DRB)

The KJV changes God into a “thing” with THAT instead of WHO. The reason for this is because the Geneva Bible always changed God into an “it” like in first John:

“All things were made by it, and without it was made nothing that was made.” - John 1:3 (Geneva)
“All things were made by him: and without him was made nothing that was made.” - John 1:3 (DRB)

So the KJV translators sometimes picked up on the habit of the Geneva’s tendency to change God into “it” “that” etc… HOWEVER, in Isaiah 51:9 the KJV changes God into an “it” and the Geneva gets it correct.
Here is another difference:

“I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall cursh thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.” – Genesis 3:15 (DRB)
“And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.” – Genesis 3:15 (KJV)

And lastly (I’ll wrap this up)… the Old Testament in the King James Version likes to call God the “Rock” rather than “God:”

“To shew that the LORD is upright: he is my rock, and there is no unrighteousness in him.” – Psalm 92:15 (KJV)
“That they may shew, That the Lord our God is righteous, and there is no iniquity in him.” – Psalm 92:15 (92:16) (DRB)

Now, this occurs within hundreds of verses within the Old Testament in the King James Version. Douay-Rheims actually follows suite in some verses:

“And he said: The Lord is my rock, and my strength, and my saviour.” – 2 Samuel 22:2 (DRB)

But, in the King James you just find it more strongly. Why? Because it is a protestant Bible.

For King James (the actual King and not the Bible), he was an extreme anti-Catholic, he didn’t consider the deuterocanonical books part of the Bible:

“And as to the Apocrypha books, I omit them, because I am no Papist, as I said before” - King James, Basilikon Doron

He wrote his Basilikon Doron before he commissioned the King James Version in 1604, so, as you can expect, the rules he laid down were to not put “emphasis” on the deuterocanonical books. They were separated in the original 1611 version if I’m not mistaken (correct me if I’m wrong).

King James spews lots of hatred at Catholics throughout all of his writings; and even protestant groups such as the puritans! Do not expect the King James Version to be “catholic friendly.” King James liked to do things HIS way (pick and choose), it’s quite ambiguous what kind of doctrines he held onto (they don’t really fit in a denomination which was unique at the time), some say he was close to calvinism, but he defies it in many of his writings. All in all, King James and his Bible are a “mixed bag,” you never know what you’re going to get.

 

[NHInsider]

What the 1611 KJV does is remind us that there was not, even in the beginning, a single Protestant church. The Church of England at the time of King James was as opposed to Lutheranism as it was to Roman Catholicism. They wanted an English translation that didn’t push the Reformist interpretations. It was Calvin and Luther who shortened the canon, and after the Puritan Revolution in England their influence shows up in later editions of the KJV. It wasn’t Catholics who burned Tyndale at the stake, it was CofE’s.

 

[Devare]

What the 1611 KJV does is remind us that there was not, even in the beginning, a single Protestant church. The Church of England at the time of King James was as opposed to Lutheranism as it was to Roman Catholicism. They wanted an English translation that didn’t push the Reformist interpretations. It was Calvin and Luther who shortened the canon, and after the Puritan Revolution in England their influence shows up in later editions of the KJV. It wasn’t Catholics who burned Tyndale at the stake, it was CofE’s.

King James had the Church of England opposing EVERYONE:
About the puritans, King James writes:

“In your prayer, be neither over strange with God, like the ignorant common sort, that prayeth nothing but out of books, nor yet over-homily with him, like some of the vain Pharisee puritans, that think they rule him upon their fingers: The former way will breed an uncouth coldness in you towards him, the other will breed in you a contempt of him, but in your prayer to God, speak the with all reverence: for if a subject will not speak but reverently to a King, much less should any flesh presume to talk with God as with his companion.” - King James, Basilikon Doron

William Tyndale was burned near Brussels, as you know, France had a big conflict concerning protestants (hugenots) and catholics. The hugenots did NOT burn William Tyndale, and I can prove it with a letter Edward de Vere wrote to William Cecil:

“I would to God your Lordship would let me understand some of your news (which here doth ring doubtfully in the ears of every man) of the murder of the Admiral of France and a number of noblemen and worthy gentlemen, and such as greatly have in their lifetimes honoured the Queen’s Majesty our mistress, on whose tragedies we have a number of French Aeneases in this city that tells of their own overthrows with tears falling from their eyes, a piteous thing to hear, but a cruel and far more grievous thing we must deem it then to see. All rumours here are but confused of those troops that are escaped from Paris and Rouen, where Monsieur hath also been and, like a vesper Sicilianus, as they say, that cruelty spreads over all France, whereof your Lordship is better advertised than we are here. And sith the world is so full of treasons and vile instruments daily to attempt new and unlooked for things, good my Lord, I shall affectiously and heartily desire your Lordship to be careful both of yourself and of her Majesty, that your friends may long enjoy you, and you them. I speak because I am not ignorant what practices have been made against your person lately by Mather and later, as I understand, by foreign practices, if it be true. And think, if the Admiral in France was an eyesore or beam in the eyes of the papists, that the Lord Treasurer of England is a block and a cross-bar in their way, whose remove they will never stick to attempt, seeing they have prevailed so well in others’.” - Edward de Vere, 1572

It was indeed Thomas More who burned Tyndale; de Vere makes it quite clear. Not that it really matters though - conflicts happen all the time. The work of Wycliffe and Tyndale was used for all [old] English Bibles.