Do Any Catholics Read the K.J.V?

[po18guy]

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.

Amen! Since the exact same Catholic Church authority canonized both the first and the deuterocanon, aren’t Protestants in essence rejecting the legitimacy of the entire bible? This was the first occasion of “cherry-picking” scripture. First, call the parts you don’t like “apocryphal”, then segregate them, and later eliminate them entirely.

Christ’s peace.

 

[des_scahill]

Amen! Since the exact same Catholic Church authority canonized both the first and the deuterocanon, aren’t Protestants in essence rejecting the legitimacy of the entire bible? This was the first occasion of “cherry-picking” scripture. First, call the parts you don’t like “apocryphal”, then segregate them, and later eliminate them entirely.

Christ’s peace.

Hmmm… I’m a Protestant

I know you meant it as a ‘joke’, so I don’t really take any offense at your comment. I read this thread because I was interested to see if Catholics have similar issues to Protestants regarding the various translations that abound these days. And you very much seem to do so

Now… here’s my beef with your particular post… you use the phrase "pick the bits you don’t like and call them "apocryphal’. That suggests to any casual reader that ‘protestants’ have some cobbled together version of scriptural texts that leave out the bits contrary to the doctrines they believe in.

I’ve seen echoes of this same attitude reflected in other posts made on this forum. The facts are quite different as you would see if you take the time to check out your own catholic sources.

1. the books in the New Testament Protestants use are identical with that in Catholic bibles. see:
   newadvent.org/cathen/03274a.htm
2. Protestant bibles treat as ‘apochrypha’ the ancient texts (books) which are more formally described as “deuterocanonical” see:
   newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm

The deuterocanonical books were themselves the subject of extensive debate within the Catholic church prior to their formal adoption. eg: The Latin Church ( see newadvent.org/cathen/09022a.htm) “wavered” about their inclusion all through the Middle Ages, St Thomas Aquinas was ‘perplexed’ about their standing, and St Jerome was derogratory towards them.

If I could express it in non-theological terms, the Protestants maybe played it ‘safe’, while the Roman Catholics found the balance of argument persuasive enough to include them, but only after struggling with the issue for a very long time.

I should add that bible versions containing the apochrypha are freely available for purchase in many protestant christian book stores. I own a number of different translations containing these texts , and many protestants (including myself) read the apochrypha and find them interesting, helpful and edifying.

Thats a huge gulf away from your apparent perception that 'protestants leave out (some undefined parts or sections of scriptural texts on some random basis) because they don’t like them"

Hope this contributes towards your understanding of protestants

Blessings

 

[Pixie_Dust]

Isn’t it interesting that non-Catholics/Protestants have no issues with the deuterocanonical books that are in the NT, such as Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, and Revelation; but they (usually) reject completely the OT deuterocanon. Even if they do read it they don’t regard it as inspired Scripture. Especially interesting because some of the passages that have been edited from non-Catholic/Protestant Bible versions of Esther and Daniel certainly give evidence of Divine Inspiration. All my Baptist life I heard the factoid about the book of Esther not mentioning God anywhere, and lo and behold, I get a Catholic Bible and there He is in the parts that Luther et al cut out.

 

[Church_Militant]

Hmmm… I’m a Protestant

…
The deuterocanonical books were themselves the subject of extensive debate within the Catholic church

prior to their formal adoption. eg: The Latin Church ( see newadvent.org/cathen/09022a.htm) “wavered” about their inclusion all through the Middle Ages, St Thomas Aquinas was ‘perplexed’ about their standing, and St Jerome was derogratory towards them.Hi Des,
The problem there is that neither of the men you mentioned denied them, and please bear in mind that Jerome was about 4th century, while Aquinas was 13th century. They may have expressed some reservations about them but the fact is that there is no question at all about the conciliar affirmations of them. Debate there may have been, but if that were a requisite to remove certain writings, then you’d find the book of Revelation and several others also missing from your Bible for the same reasons. They also were much discussed and debated.

Think about that…

If I could express it in non-theological terms, the Protestants maybe played it ‘safe’, while the Roman Catholics found the balance of argument persuasive enough to include them, but only after struggling with the issue for a very long time.

I don’t think that if you research the remarks and comments of Luther and others who rejected them that you’ll find that to be the case at all. Luther wanted to remove Esther and several New Testament books including Revelation and James as well. Check that out.

In fact they were not finally removed from published editions of the KJV until the mid 1800s and only then by some Bible society that published them as a cost cutting measure, which lacks both the proper authority to do something like that and (IMO) the proper motivation to do so.

I should add that bible versions containing the apochrypha are freely available for purchase in many protestant christian book stores. I own a number of different translations containing these texts , and many protestants (including myself) read the apochrypha and find them interesting, helpful and edifying.

That’s not really all that relevant is it? It’s nice that n-Cs may offer them, and I am gratified to hear that you read them, but so long as they are not accepted as affirmed scripture as per the early church councils, then the problem remains.

Thats a huge gulf away from your apparent perception that 'protestants leave out (some undefined parts or sections of scriptural texts on some random basis) because they don’t like them"

I don’t think I actually said that though it’s close to my own opinion based upon reading things that Luther said about his reasons.

Being, (as he is) the de facto father of this controversy, one looks with some distress at a man who refers to the Epistle of St. James as “an epistle of straw” and states that he hated the book of Esther and wished it did not exist.

My main point is that if the early church councils affirmed them all as inspired scripture when they were far and away closer to the source than Luther or any of us, who are we to now, in modern times, to reject them?

Hope this contributes towards your understanding of protestants

Blessings

And to you as well sir. I do feel that I have a pretty good understanding of Protestants. Here’s my testimony.

 

[des_scahill]

Isn’t it interesting that non-Catholics/Protestants have no issues with the deuterocanonical books that are in the NT, such as Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, and Revelation; but they (usually) reject completely the OT deuterocanon.

Yes,it is ‘interesting’ but lets not overlook that the Catholic church had a long debate over a century or two before they decided to put it in. Obviously its a bit a ‘problem’ area, no real need to view it through spectacles of conspiracy when it could simply have been a case of "when in doubt, leave it out’. Did St Jerome get his sainthood reversed because of his stance?.

Even if they do read it they don’t regard it as inspired Scripture. Especially interesting because some of the passages that have been edited from non-Catholic/Protestant Bible versions of Esther and Daniel certainly give evidence of Divine Inspiration

 

[Robert_in_SD]

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 know this may sound terrible, but I have a copy of a KJV that I bought when I was clerking for a trial court judge many years ago. It was necessary to have it because … and this is the terrible part … it was the bible of choice for the crazy *in pro per * (unrepresented by an attorney) parties who liked to quote the scriptures in the rambling manifestos that they would file. I would check their citations and often found them to be wrong or mis-stated.

I don’t know why the crazies all liked the KJV. And I’m not saying that its necessarily always the case. But it was my experience that every crazy person in the San Diego courthouse who quoted a bible used the KJV.

Anyway, the positive I took from this is that I came to appreciate the language of the KJV. Perhaps the archaic language imparted some additional sense of authority to these misguided people? In any event, the short answer is yes, as a Catholic have read from the KJV. No, it did not make me a protestant. I prefer the RSV:CE/Ignatius Bible.

Peace,
-Robert

 

[AMDGtoo]

When speaking about Esther and Daniel, it was mentioned that some parts of each in Protestant Bibles are missing. And des-scahill mentioned that both Catholic and protestant Bibles contain both books.

Well, in my KJV (Protestant), Daniel only has 12 chapters while my Jeruslem (Catholic) has 14 chapters including (IMO) the beautiful story of God’s deliverence of Susanna in the face of certain dishonor and death. and the story of Bel and the Dragon.

And I think the point of mentioning that parts of Esther and Daniel are not contained in Protestant Bibles is that both the complete books are considered part of the Deuterocanonical books and part of the 46 books of the canon which the Church officially approved back in the 4th century (at the Councils of Hippo, 393 A.D. and Carthage, 397 A.D.)

 

[Pixie_Dust]

Yes,it is ‘interesting’ but lets not overlook that the Catholic church had a long debate over a century or two before they decided to put it in. Obviously its a bit a ‘problem’ area, no real need to view it through spectacles of conspiracy when it could simply have been a case of "when in doubt, leave it out’. Did St Jerome get his sainthood reversed because of his stance?.

My main point in saying that was that Protestants accept the deuterocanonical books that are in the NT but not the OT deuterocanonical books, and I wonder why? St Jerome’s ultimate stance was submission to the Church, so why should he be un-sainted for having questions?

.

Thats a separate issue of course, because both catholic and protestant bibles contain these books.-

The Catholic Bible contains the books in their entirety, Protestant Bibles do not.

I’d like to check up on it. Lets just stick with the Book of Esther first.

I’ve got a Roman Catholic edition of the New International so presumably the verses that have been edited out will still be in that one? Could you check that? and then let me know the Chapter verses that seem to have been chopped

I’ll find them in my RC edition, then I’ll compare that to the New International version that some Protestants use. Then I’ll compare both to the King James, New English and Amplified; then see if there are any differences in the underlying texts usedin the translations. That should identify the ‘cut-out’ bits and/rmaybe cast some light on underlying manuscript selection differences .

Looking in your Catholic Bible, and comparing it to your non-Catholic Bible, it will be very obvious what’s been removed, as the chapters that Luther removed are lettered instead of numbered in Esther.

Never heard of that one. What point was being made by the person who said that to you?

The point was that even though God (allegedly) was not mentioned in Esther, you could see Him working through Mordecai and Esther to accomplish His will.

 

[Jehuty_X]

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?

no … i read the new jerusalem bible (spanish and english) … nothing more …

 

[po18guy]

Hmmm… I’m a Protestant

Now… here’s my beef with your particular post… you use the phrase "pick the bits you don’t like and call them "apocryphal’. That suggests to any casual reader that ‘protestants’ have some cobbled together version of scriptural texts that leave out the bits contrary to the doctrines they believe in.

Not “cobbled together”, but an incomplete canon. If you rely solely on the bible, and one which is incomplete at that, how can you possibly know the fulness of Christ? Especially since the DC contains many Christian prophecies.

1. the books in the New Testament Protestants use are identical with that in Catholic bibles. see:
   newadvent.org/cathen/03274a.htm

1. Protestant bibles treat as ‘apochrypha’ the ancient texts (books) which are more formally described as “deuterocanonical” see:
   newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm

What this seems to say is that that you accept the Catholic NT, but not the Catholic OT, even though the exact same Holy Spirit lead authority canonized both. You think there was no great argument over the NT? It took almost 400 years of arguing to canonize and there was plenty of dissent! So, aren’t you in effect choosing which scripture you like and which you don’t. It all came from the same authoritative source.

The deuterocanonical books were themselves the subject of extensive debate within the Catholic church prior to their formal adoption. eg: The Latin Church ( see newadvent.org/cathen/09022a.htm) “wavered” about their inclusion all through the Middle Ages, St Thomas Aquinas was ‘perplexed’ about their standing, and St Jerome was derogratory towards them.

OK, there were two men with differing opinions. In the end. both remained obedient to the church. They were Sainted, partially because of their very obedience. They humbled themselves for the sake of the church, and unity. They didn’t break off and use their egos to divide the church.

If I could express it in non-theological terms, the Protestants maybe played it ‘safe’, while the Roman Catholics found the balance of argument persuasive enough to include them, but only after struggling with the issue for a very long time.

Same as with the NT. It was the rebellion that caused the argument to arise once again. Look at the timing involved. So much of Catholic Doctrine was only officially defined when challenged, by various heresies. There was plenty of heresy in the rebellion, which forced the canon to be revisited and formalized for all time. Of course, the rebels rejected it.

I should add that bible versions containing the apochrypha are freely available for purchase in many protestant christian book stores. I own a number of different translations containing these texts , and many protestants (including myself) read the apochrypha and find them interesting, helpful and edifying.

But, what is the consistency within the thousands and thousands of denominations regarding the deuterocanonical books? Since they are assocuated with Catholicism, many Fundamentalist sects and Evangelicals reject them completely.

Thats a huge gulf away from your apparent perception that 'protestants leave out (some undefined parts or sections of scriptural texts on some random basis) because they don’t like them"

Well, where did the concept of “cherrry-picking” scripture come from? Catholics don’t do it. We rely on the entire, original scriptures and Catholic theology is based on the whole book.

Hope this contributes towards your understanding of protestants Blessings

Thank you for the blessing, brother in Christ. We all tend to understand basic Protestantism rather well, but there is just too much variation of it to learn it all in one lifetime. Again, how can anyone ever hope to understand the widely fluctuating and varying theology that is presented in the 30,000+ denominations loosely grouped as “Protestant”, because there is such widespread disagreement on the meaning of scripture, and private interpretation has fouled that up almost beyond comprehension.

This is a sick, tragic situation that calls for Christian unity, as Christ prayed to the Father. But, human ego so far has prevented that. Note that the vast majority of converts to Catholicism give thanks to their former faith traditions for bringing them to a solid relationship with Christ. However, they hungered for more and found it.

Check this link for a Catholic explanation of the Deuterocanon:

st-takla.org/pub_Deuterocanon/Deuterocanon-Apocrypha_El-Asfar_El-Kanoneya_El-Tanya__0-index.html

May Christ’s peace be with you.

 

[AlanF]

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.

Is the original 1611 version available to buy anywhere?

I definately prefer the language of the original.

 

[lak611]

Is the original 1611 version available to buy anywhere?

I definately prefer the language of the original.

Amazon.com has it.

 

[bauerice]

From what I understand, Venerable John Henry Cardinal Newman continued to read the KJV. He was a convert that was very comfortable with the translation.

 

[LordNecro]

The KJV has such beautiful language. I’m reading Jeremiah from there at the moment, real striking stuff.

 

[Claudius]

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 don’t read KJV and I discourage anyone who has one from reading it. It would be far better to get a newer translation like the NAB or the Jerusalem Bible than to tauch the KJV which is far, far, far from accurate and has heresy in it to try to support the political leader as the head of the church. We have to keep in mind that it was written, not translated, by sinful protestants who hated Christ and his church and wanted to elevate the King of England to a station higher than the King of the Universe.

What would be best is for Catholics to learn Latin and read the Vulgate. If you can’t get Latin, and I don’t see why not, it is the easiest language to learn, than learn Greek which is only a little more difficult. If you don’t like Greek then learn Syriac or Coptic. I will tell you to go to whatever lenths you have to to avoid the KJV.

What would be even better than all of that is to trust the Church and be loyal to your priest and Bishop and obey them. Let them instruct you as to which Bible ok to read. KJV has never been accepted by the Church because it contains heresy. Avoid it.

 

[anon52328184]

i have several Bible translations. I don’t usually use the KJV as my preferred study Bible, mainly because there are so many translations that are easier to read. i like to compare the translation of scriptures in all of my Bibles. since i have been both protestant and Catholic, i have bibles used by both faiths.

the KJV translation is beautiful in my opinion, but i will usually only refer to it if i am wanting to see if certain words are different in different translations.

 

[lak611]

I don’t read KJV and I discourage anyone who has one from reading it. It would be far better to get a newer translation like the NAB or the Jerusalem Bible than to tauch the KJV which is far, far, far from accurate and has heresy in it to try to support the political leader as the head of the church. We have to keep in mind that it was written, not translated, by sinful protestants who hated Christ and his church and wanted to elevate the King of England to a station higher than the King of the Universe.

What would be best is for Catholics to learn Latin and read the Vulgate. If you can’t get Latin, and I don’t see why not, it is the easiest language to learn, than learn Greek which is only a little more difficult. If you don’t like Greek then learn Syriac or Coptic. I will tell you to go to whatever lenths you have to to avoid the KJV.

What would be even better than all of that is to trust the Church and be loyal to your priest and Bishop and obey them. Let them instruct you as to which Bible ok to read. KJV has never been accepted by the Church because it contains heresy. Avoid it.

The NAB is one of the worst translations available. I prefer the RSV-CE and D-R, but I will read the KJV rather than the NAB. There is no inclusive language in the KJV, and it is possible to buy a KJV without any footnotes at all. The footnotes in the NAB are awful.

 

[AMDGtoo]

I don’t think there is anything wrong with using the KJV. (Especially when doing apologetic work with those who only use the KJV.) In fact, I find the language of the KJV comparable to that of my Doauy-Rheimes (actually slightly older than the KJV.) I have several different translations–the NAB, the Jerusalem (not the inclusive language one), the Doauy-Rheimes, the KJV and the RSV. I think that when one does Bible study, that’s really needed. It helps to check out different words, the language and how certain concepts are written, the footnotes and references that the NT uses to the OT, and even what is missing in the Protestant Bibles

 

[patrick457]

I don’t read KJV and I discourage anyone who has one from reading it. It would be far better to get a newer translation like the NAB or the Jerusalem Bible than to tauch the KJV which is far, far, far from accurate and has heresy in it to try to support the political leader as the head of the church. We have to keep in mind that it was written, not translated, by sinful protestants who hated Christ and his church and wanted to elevate the King of England to a station higher than the King of the Universe.

What would be best is for Catholics to learn Latin and read the Vulgate. If you can’t get Latin, and I don’t see why not, it is the easiest language to learn, than learn Greek which is only a little more difficult. If you don’t like Greek then learn Syriac or Coptic. I will tell you to go to whatever lenths you have to to avoid the KJV.

What would be even better than all of that is to trust the Church and be loyal to your priest and Bishop and obey them. Let them instruct you as to which Bible ok to read. KJV has never been accepted by the Church because it contains heresy. Avoid it.

While I won’t say that the KJV is ‘heretical’ per se, I do think that that version, while certainly having beautiful renderings and a valuable impact over the English language, is just rather so-so, IMHO.

Trivia: The form of English used in the King James Version itself was already quite antiquated (by 1611) when the translators set to work.

While the work itself was done as a response to what the Puritans perceived as ‘defects’ in the Bishop’s Bible and the Great Bible, the translators themselves were told to limit Puritan influence on the translation; for example, they were told to keep ‘the old ecclesiastical words’ (such as translating ekklesias as “church” and not “congregation”) reflecting the episcopal structure of the Church of England and traditional beliefs about an ordained clergy. I guess the translators were kept from doing further ‘harm’ of sorts by this single decision?

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Trivia: The form of English used in the King James Version itself was already quite antiquated (by 1611) when the translators set to work.

While the work itself was done as a response to what the Puritans perceived as ‘defects’ in the Bishop’s Bible and the Great Bible, the translators themselves were told to limit Puritan influence on the translation; for example, they were told to keep ‘the old ecclesiastical words’ (such as translating ekklesias as “church” and not “congregation”) reflecting the episcopal structure of the Church of England and traditional beliefs about an ordained clergy. I guess the translators were kept from doing further ‘harm’ of sorts by this single decision?

I love trivia and that is interesting. Does the DR version have unicorns and cockatrices in it, as does the KJV?