How "Bad"/ Anti Catholic is the KJV?

[El_PAso]

Howdy,

I have been searching for a good audio version of the Bible. Most are overly dramatic and flowery and unlistenable to my ears EXCEPT a reading of the KJV by Johnny Cash!

Wonderful, sober, reflective and of course that voice!

But I don’t want to be filling my head/heart with half truths. I am familiar with numerous protestant canards and have a working knowledge of the history of the Bible. I have RSVCE, Douay-Rheims, and NAB. All my study Bible rely upon the RSVCE.

I am curious if there are any serious revisions to the KJV that would be confusing.

Any pitfalls I need to be aware of if I proceed?

Thanks,

EP

 

[PopePiusXIISupp]

Well, the KJV and all protestant bibles removed 7 books that were added to the bible. The Catholic CHurch does have the Douay Rheim which has the same style and language as the KJV, but keeps the 7 books the protestants removed.

 

[Della]

Howdy,

I have been searching for a good audio version of the Bible. Most are overly dramatic and flowery and unlistenable to my ears EXCEPT a reading of the KJV by Johnny Cash!

Wonderful, sober, reflective and of course that voice!

But I don’t want to be filling my head/heart with half truths. I am familiar with numerous protestant canards and have a working knowledge of the history of the Bible. I have RSVCE, Douay-Rheims, and NAB. All my study Bible rely upon the RSVCE.

I am curious if there are any serious revisions to the KJV that would be confusing.

Any pitfalls I need to be aware of if I proceed?

Thanks,

EP

Well, the original KJV had the same books as the Douay Rheim’s version, but then parts of it were excised afterwards, as PopePiusXIISupp cited, the 7 Deuterocanonical books of the OT, as well as portions of some other OT books, such as Esther.

As for translation, the NT has some transition problems on some important issues. However, for devotional purposes, the KJV is okay, for what it is–an incomplete version with some translation differences.

 

[DeusExMachina]

Well, the KJV and all protestant bibles removed 7 books that were added to the bible. The Catholic CHurch does have the Douay Rheim which has the same style and language as the KJV, but keeps the 7 books the protestants removed.

Actually the original 1611 KJV kept the Apocrypha. It was only in some later editions, mainly for use by Baptists and Presbyterians, that it was removed.
As for being “anti-Catholic”, I cant think of anything that comes to mind, only that it suffers from many of the same errors as the KJV.

 

[El_PAso]

I’m sorry.

I meant specifically the NT which is all Johnny Cash read.

I’m looking to the KJV as strictly an audiobook as there are no Catholic audio versions that appeal to me. As I said before those available are overly dramatic, almost hammy.

BTW If anyone has advice on a decent Catholic audio Bible, read with reverence but not dramatized I’d be very interested!

Thanks,

EP

 

[Estevao]

Two verses that come to mind in the KJV are, of course, Luke 1:28 (“thou that art highly favored” instead of “full of grace” and Hebrews 13:4 (“Marriage is honourable in all” rather than “marriage is to be honored by all”, which was probably meant as a slight to priestly celibacy). The KJV was my first bible that was given to me by my mother and I still like it. I would say it’s a fine translation, especially if you can get one with the deutero-canonical books.

I think the NIV is much worse with how it translated teaching or tradition depending on whether it sounded right to protestant ears or not (teaching when it might be read as tradition in a positive context, and tradition whenever that words was in a negative context). That isn’t really a translation IMO.

 

[Estevao]

I’m sorry.

I meant specifically the NT which is all Johnny Cash read.

I’m looking to the KJV as strictly an audiobook as there are no Catholic audio versions that appeal to me. As I said before those available are overly dramatic, almost hammy.

BTW If anyone has advice on a decent Catholic audio Bible, read with reverence but not dramatized I’d be very interested!

Thanks,

EP

Check out the Douay Rheims audio bible by Steve Webb.

douayrheimsaudiobible.org/

It costs money though. If you search on librivox there is a free version of the Douay Rheims, but I haven’t heard it so I can’t say if it is good.

 

[El_PAso]

Check out the Douay Rheims audio bible by Steve Webb.

douayrheimsaudiobible.org/

It costs money though. If you search on librivox there is a free version of the Douay Rheims, but I haven’t heard it so I can’t say if it is good.

That’s a nice reading! Straight forward.

Thanks I think I will buy this version as well!

EP

 

[FollowChrist34]

Howdy,

I have been searching for a good audio version of the Bible. Most are overly dramatic and flowery and unlistenable to my ears EXCEPT a reading of the KJV by Johnny Cash!

Wonderful, sober, reflective and of course that voice!

But I don’t want to be filling my head/heart with half truths. I am familiar with numerous protestant canards and have a working knowledge of the history of the Bible. I have RSVCE, Douay-Rheims, and NAB. All my study Bible rely upon the RSVCE.

I am curious if there are any serious revisions to the KJV that would be confusing.

Any pitfalls I need to be aware of if I proceed?

Thanks,

EP

None. The orginal KJV had the Apocrypha. Read it with that. The translation is quite good, actually holds up today, in scholarly terms; aesthetically it leaves 99% of all other Bibles in the shade. Read Catholic Bibles too of course. No bogey man will get you. Except for maybe on CAF.

 

[gus]

Well, the KJV and all protestant bibles removed 7 books that were added to the bible. The Catholic CHurch does have the Douay Rheim which has the same style and language as the KJV, but keeps the 7 books the protestants removed.

Actually the KJV kept all 7 books ,but in a separate area .
It also had numerous footnote references to these books as Paul and John frequently lifted material from them.
When the Bible societies succeeded in getting them removed it was a cause of some controversy by people raised on that book.The Lutherans to thrir credit never bowed to the pressure and the 7 books were never removed from German Bibles

 

[billcu1]

Well, the original KJV had the same books as the Douay Rheim’s version, but then parts of it were excised afterwards, as PopePiusXIISupp cited, the 7 Deuterocanonical books of the OT, as well as portions of some other OT books, such as Esther.

As for translation, the NT has some transition problems on some important issues. However, for devotional purposes, the KJV is okay, for what it is–an incomplete version with some translation differences.

It was my understanding that the protestant churches removed those 7 books and kept them separate and in another book from the rest. For what reason IDK. There was the Bile and the text of the 7 books. Then IDK what happened to them.

 

[Todd977]

In footnote #1 in Part I. of the General Preface to the New Testament of the 1859 edition of Haydock’s Bible, there is a list of some questionable KJV renderings, here, near the bottom of the webpage.

 

[Good_Fella]

Actually the original 1611 KJV kept the Apocrypha. It was only in some later editions, mainly for use by Baptists and Presbyterians, that it was removed.
As for being “anti-Catholic”, I cant think of anything that comes to mind, only that it suffers from many of the same errors as the KJV.

That’s just it! The Deuterocanonical books aren’t Apocrypha in the sense that they aren’t the inspired word of God. It all began with Martin Luther who adopted the Jewish list (a rationalization on his part) and placed the Deuterocanonical books in an appendix. At first, he also excluded the Letter of James, the Letter to the Hebrews, the Letters of John, and the Book of Revelation from the New Testament. And he did this for doctrinal reasons. For instance, 2 Maccabees 12:43-46 supports the doctrine of purgatory, Hebrews supports the existence of the priesthood, and James 2:24 supports the Catholic doctrine on merit - justification by faith and works. Lutherans who came after followed Luther’s Old Testament list and rejected the Deuterocanonical books, but they didn’t accept his rejection of the New Testament books. Meanwhile, the Council of Trent reaffirmed and defined the traditional list of the Catholic Church in the wake of the so-called Protestant reformation.

:heaven:

 

[porthos11]

I am of the belief that the King James Version can be compiled into a Catholic edition (i.e. “Vulgate-style” or “sandwich-style”) without changing a single word (not even Luke 1:28). All the texts are complete.

The issue with the King James is not that it’s anti-Catholic, but rather its underlying texts (the Textus Receptus) is four hundred years out of date, and can now be considered defective. It results in some textual inaccuracies, but nothing against faith and morals.

If a bishop puts his mind to it, I think he can simply stamp an Imprimatur on a properly compiled KJV and approve it for devotional Catholic reading (it will never be suitable for liturgical use as a Lectionary, although a small portion of the King James is already approved as part of the Mass: the Prologue to John’s Gospel).

 

[FollowChrist34]

I would like to add that for all hand-wringing and hair-tearing over this, we all would have had time to read the whole New Testament - KJV or otherwise. Possibly even twice. And we would have been much better Christians for it. (I include myself in this)

 

[Good_Fella]

I am of the belief that the King James Version can be compiled into a Catholic edition (i.e. “Vulgate-style” or “sandwich-style”) without changing a single word (not even Luke 1:28). All the texts are complete.

The issue with the King James is not that it’s anti-Catholic, but rather its underlying texts (the Textus Receptus) is four hundred years out of date, and can now be considered defective. It results in some textual inaccuracies, but nothing against faith and morals.

If a bishop puts his mind to it, I think he can simply stamp an Imprimatur on a properly compiled KJV and approve it for devotional Catholic reading (it will never be suitable for liturgical use as a Lectionary, although a small portion of the King James is already approved as part of the Mass: the Prologue to John’s Gospel).

Agreed. The 66 Books that are retained aren’t in and of themselves anti-Catholic, but Protestant interpretations of the Scriptures in the KJV are often non-Catholic.

:heaven:

 

[porthos11]

Agreed. The 66 Books that are retained aren’t in and of themselves anti-Catholic, but Protestant interpretations of the Scriptures in the KJV are often non-Catholic.

:heaven:

You don’t even have to limit yourself to the 66 books because the King James Bible includes all the texts accepted by the Catholic Church, including the Deuterocanonicals and some apocrypha (1 Esdras, 2 Esdras, Prayer of Manasseh).

As was done with the RSV-CE, the books of Esther and Daniel can be edited to read like Catholic books, with the other Deuterocanonicals in the traditional Vulgate order, or go the route of the Good News Bible and “sandwich” the Deuterocanonicals between the Old and New Testaments.

A King James Bible Catholic edition would be an awesome edition, because for all its faults, the English of the Authorized Version is unmatched.

(And no, the DR does not hold a candle to the KJV).

 

[PopePiusXIISupp]

With John 3:16 in the KJV it reads, “For God so loved the world that he sent His only Son so that whoever believes shall not perish, but will have everlasting life.” It puts a sola fide twist on what the DR says, “For God so loved the world that he sent His only Son so that whoever believes may not perish, but might have everlasting life.” One say will have and the other says might. Salvation is much more that saying, “I believe in Jesus” and live a sin ridden life.

In Genesis 3:15 the DR reads “I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.” which puts importance on Mary and the miraculous medal since it has that depiction. In the KJV it would say, “And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; he shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.” which turns Mary into a non-important figure. From Mary’s conception She has crushed the serpent’s head.

These are some key differences between the KJV and DR

 

[ctb95]

Two verses that come to mind in the KJV are, of course, Luke 1:28 (“thou that art highly favored” instead of “full of grace” and Hebrews 13:4 (“Marriage is honourable in all” rather than “marriage is to be honored by all”, which was probably meant as a slight to priestly celibacy). The KJV was my first bible that was given to me by my mother and I still like it. I would say it’s a fine translation, especially if you can get one with the deutero-canonical books.

I think the NIV is much worse with how it translated teaching or tradition depending on whether it sounded right to protestant ears or not (teaching when it might be read as tradition in a positive context, and tradition whenever that words was in a negative context). That isn’t really a translation IMO.

Yes. This is one hundred percent accurate. The NIV is notorious for being a translation that, let’s say, favors a certain theological agenda.

 

[porthos11]

With John 3:16 in the KJV it reads, “For God so loved the world that he sent His only Son so that whoever believes shall not perish, but will have everlasting life.” It puts a sola fide twist on what the DR says, “For God so loved the world that he sent His only Son so that whoever believes may not perish, but might have everlasting life.” One say will have and the other says might. Salvation is much more that saying, “I believe in Jesus” and live a sin ridden life.

In Genesis 3:15 the DR reads “I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.” which puts importance on Mary and the miraculous medal since it has that depiction. In the KJV it would say, “And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; he shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.” which turns Mary into a non-important figure. From Mary’s conception She has crushed the serpent’s head.

These are some key differences between the KJV and DR

And just shows why I dislike the DR and prefer the King James.

And no, only one reading with a bias will see “anti-Catholicism” in the KJV’s John 3:16. It’s a fine translation of the Greek.

“Litmus-testing” is not a good way of assessing a Bible’s suitability.