Do Any Catholics Read the K.J.V?

[juliasmith]

I was raised Baptist, so it was KJV only for the first 15 years of my life. I now prefer the NAB as that is what Fr suggested I use when I inquired. But I still use the KJV for comparative reading. I am sometimes in awe of the differences conveyed. …subtle as they are.

 

[lanceg]

I like the D-R also. I prefer it more than the KJV except for the Psalms. I like the Psalms in the KJV better than in any other translation. All of my Bibles are expensive. I like leather bound Bibles. There is a hardcover edition of that Bible available. I just gave the link to the one I own.

There are at least two very inexpensive editions of the KJV bible on the market, both paperback, both around 18-20 dollars. One is published by Oxford classics, as simply the BIBLE. The other is basically the same as the Cambridge Paragraph Bible, but it is in paper back- for the moment, I can’t remember who publishes it, Cambridge, or Penguin.

Also, there is the Third Millennium Bible which is an updated 1611 KJV with the Apocrypha, with only the most obscure words and phrases edited. It is available at tmbible.com .

It is a little more affordable at $45 for a hard cover.

 

[et1jake]

I never read the KJV (a.k.a. “the Authorized Version”) unless I’m doing comparative studies. As a Catholic if one knew of the history of recusant Catholics in the U.K. during the Catholic Penal period I believe it would be difficult (in good consciousness) to use the KJV for faith/religious purposes.

For serious study and reflection and devotional purposes I don’t think that a Douay-Rheims (Challoner Revision) w/ Haydock’s notes cannot be beat. There are as many notes as scripture in this Bible. Not only does it explain the passages, their history, and the translations; but it addresses the anti-Catholic bias of other English translations of the Bible such as the KJV.

PS: Any DR Bible will most likely be the Challoner Revision. There are very few re-publications of the original Douay Rheims out there. And reading them will most likely drive one crazy unless you really like the “Ye Olde Englishe” used during that period. A good website for a short history of the DR is:
www.douaybible.com

 

[CHRISTINE77]

I love KJV. It has unicorns, cockatrices and saytrs in it. It’s more fanciful than the other translations. It’s a lot like reading Shakespeare. But I like NIV too, it’s nice and clear and easy to read.

 

[mpernot]

I do have a KJV, but I only use it for comparative purposes. My understanding is the Revised Standard Version - Catholic Edition and New American Bible were the two approved by the church. I’ve heard people like Jeff Cavins (in his “Great Adventure” Bible study series) and Scott Hahn say this, and I trust them.

That being said, my primary Bible is a Douay-Rheims. I was questioning this in light of what I wrote above, but it sounds like I’m not alone in using this version…

 

[SFH]

I mainly read the New Jerusalem Bible and the Douay Rheims Bible but I have recently been given a copy of the K.J.V and I was wondering if there are any Catholics who read this Bible?

I read the King James Bible from time to time (I’ve read it cover to cover about 8 times, including the Apocryphra). It’s a beautiful translation, and much closer to the Latin Vulgate than most modern translations, which should come as no surprise given that the King James Bible represents a revision of earlier English translations that were based on the Latin Vulgate.

It has a few problems (e.g. the Angelic Salutation in St. Luke), but it’s a pretty solid translation. The Douay-Rheims Challoner version borrows heavily from the K.J.V., and in some places, improves on the text.

 

[SFH]

So, you all agree that the KJV is a reliable translation? I was concerned that the translators may have been biased; they may have deliberately chosen words to convey protestant doctrine. However, based on what you all have written, I will read the KJV along with my Douay and New Jerusalem Study Bible.

There is some slight bias in the translation, but it’s nothing crazy. The Catholic apologists would have picked apart any blatant mistranslations, and the KJV translators were well aware of that fact.

 

[AMDGtoo]

The Douay-Rheims Challoner version borrows heavily from the K.J.V., and in some places, improves on the text.

Borrows from the KJV? It is my understanding that the Douay-Rheims is actually a year or so older than the KJV.

 

[mwalker]

I have always used the King James Version. I purchased the KJV Apocrypha from Amazon as a supplement.

 

[pnewton]

I read it from time to time. It has the benefit over the NAB as being a little more literal and less dynaminc.

I am now going through the NKJV on tape. I have a dramatized version that is outstanding, with Jim Caveziel as Jesus and about 40 other actors.

 

[lak611]

Borrows from the KJV? It is my understanding that the Douay-Rheims is actually a year or so older than the KJV.

Neither the KJV or the D-R that are in bookstores today are the original versions. Challoner revised the original D-R in 1763-1764. Blayney revised the KJV in 1769. The Challoner revision of the D-R is the version we find in the stores today. The Blayney revision of the KJV is the version we find in the stores today.

 

[lanceg]

Neither the KJV or the D-R that are in bookstores today are the original versions. Challoner revised the original D-R in 1763-1764. Blayney revised the KJV in 1769. The Challoner revision of the D-R is the version we find in the stores today. The Blayney revision of the KJV is the version we find in the stores today.

The Douay Rheims & the King James influenced each other. The DRB came out first, the New Testament in 1582; the KJV translators had access to it and used it. On the other hand, when Bishop Challoner revised the DRB in 1769, he made us of the KJV. The DRB & KJV sound so similar in language and phraseology in part because of this dynamic.

I personally use often a Douay Confraternity Bible, with the Douay Old Testament, and the Confraternity New Testament.

For modern translations, I like the Jerusalem & New Jerusalem Bibles, the Orthodox Study Bible, the RSV, and others.

 

[lak611]

I mentioned that the KJV in stores today is the Blayney revision. Here is the prologue of John’s Gospel in the original 1611 KJV:

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, & the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Joh 1:2 The same was in the beginning with God.
Joh 1:3 All things were made by him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.
Joh 1:4 In him was life, and the life was the light of men.
Joh 1:5 And the light shineth in darknesse, and the darknesse comprehended it not.
Joh 1:6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was Iohn.
Joh 1:7 The same came for a witnesse, to beare witnesse of the light, that all men through him might beleeue.
Joh 1:8 Hee was not that light, but was sent to beare witnesse of that light.
Joh 1:9 That was the true light, which lighteth euery man that commeth into the world.
Joh 1:10 Hee was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.
Joh 1:11 Hee came vnto his owne, and his owne receiued him not.
Joh 1:12 But as many as receiued him, to them gaue hee power to become the sonnes of God, euen to them that beleeue on his Name:
Joh 1:13 Which were borne, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
Joh 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among vs (& we beheld his glory, the glory as of the onely begotten of the Father) full of grace and trueth.
Joh 1:15 Iohn bare witnesse of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that commeth after me, is preferred before me, for he was before me.
Joh 1:16 And of his fulnesse haue all wee receiued, and grace for grace.
Joh 1:17 For the Law was giuen by Moses, but grace and trueth came by Iesus Christ.
Joh 1:18 No man hath seene God at any time: the onely begotten Sonne, which is in the bosome of the Father, he hath declared him.

Here is the prologue of John’s Gospel in the Blayney revision of the KJV:

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Joh 1:2 The same was in the beginning with God.
Joh 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
Joh 1:4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
Joh 1:5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
Joh 1:6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
Joh 1:7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.
Joh 1:8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.
Joh 1:9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.
Joh 1:10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.
Joh 1:11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.
Joh 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
Joh 1:13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
Joh 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
Joh 1:15 John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me.
Joh 1:16 And of his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace.
Joh 1:17 For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.
Joh 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I mainly read the New Jerusalem Bible and the Douay Rheims Bible but I have recently been given a copy of the K.J.V and I was wondering if there are any Catholics who read this Bible?

I read it for memorisation - more recent versions are more accurate & much more intelligible, but they are seldom memorable It OTOH is in rhythmical prose, so a lot of it sticks in the mind without effort on the part of the reader. Isaiah 40 is a good example.​

Sometimes it can be ponderous & stiff or simply unintelligible, as in the books which are about ideas: Job; Psalms; Proverbs; St Paul’s letters; it can on occasion be very obscure in these books. The obscurity is often in the underlying text, as is the case with Job & Psalms; to understand St. Paul, one really needs a more recent translation: even the Revised Version NT of 1885 is not much of an improvement. The Authorised Version - as the KJV is more generally known - is probably at its best with the narratives of the Bible.

I know some people adore the Gibbons-Troy-Challoner-DR (what people call the Douai-Reims is nothing like the DR) - but I can’t get over the Septuagint forms of the names: “Ahaziah” looks just too bizarre as “Ochozias”. OTOH, Moses would like odd as “Moshe”.

 

[SyCarl]

Borrows from the KJV? It is my understanding that the Douay-Rheims is actually a year or so older than the KJV.

It is the Challoner revision that borrowed from the King James Version, not the original version.

 

[dancny]

I use it when I am qutoing in an argument with a Protestant. I had a protestant once tell me that they rejected my argument because my quotes weren’t from the KJV. So that is the one I use.

 

[Dempsey1919]

I use it when I am qutoing in an argument with a Protestant. I had a protestant once tell me that they rejected my argument because my quotes weren’t from the KJV. So that is the one I use.

You have had the pleasure of talking with a “King James Onlyist.” They only use the KJV of Scripture. They are the ones who think that Christ used the KJV!

 

[jfoges]

I love reading the Authorized (King James) Version. I think the AV is much better to read than the 1991 New American Bible. I wish there was a AV with the Apocrypha/Deuterocanonical Books.

You can get a KJV with the apocrypha in it. The original KJV did have the apocrypha in a seperate section.

 

[Church_Militant]

You can get a KJV with the apocrypha in it. The original KJV did have the apocrypha in a seperate section.

There is no such thing as any apocryphal books in the Catholic Bible. That is a pejorative term applied by n-C/a-Cs. The books that you refer to are factually known as the Deuterocanonical books, or just the Deuterocanon.

They can indeed be found where you mentioned in the real 1611 editions of the KJV, which are indeed still available.

Personally, I prefer the Douay-Rheims Bible which came out 2 years prior to the KJV and is a much better Catholic version and (IMHO) just plain reads better.

Among the modern translations, my preference is for my RSV-CE 2nd Edition.

I won’t use a King James in general, and most times n-Cs haven’t been able to tell the difference between the DRB and KJB. I have found that a Strong’s concordance works as well on both.

 

[po18guy]

I read the King James Bible from time to time (I’ve read it cover to cover about 8 times, including the Apocryphra). It’s a beautiful translation, and much closer to the Latin Vulgate than most modern translations, which should come as no surprise given that the King James Bible represents a revision of earlier English translations that were based on the Latin Vulgate.

It has a few problems (e.g. the Angelic Salutation in St. Luke), but it’s a pretty solid translation. The Douay-Rheims Challoner version borrows heavily from the K.J.V., and in some places, improves on the text.

I use it, from an on-line concordance, to demonstrate Catholic doctrine from a Protestant bible. That way, they cannot say that I used a Catholic-friendly translation.

Witness from the King James Version:

2 Peter 1:20 “Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.”

2 Thessalonians 2:15 “Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.”

So, the KJV indeed backs Catholic Doctrine in the more heavily disputed areas, such as private interpretation and maintaining the Sacred Traditions.

Christ’s peace.