King James and Validty

  • Thread starter Thread starter CapitalistCatholic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
See it through the lens of the Church, ignore the notes, you will be fine. If you have to get it, get it only for the extra deuterocanon, otherwise go with Douay Rheims.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for clarifying.

I’m not a scholar on the entirety of the KJV of the Bible. I would generally encourage Catholics to stick with translations that have been approved by their bishops (the NAB, RSV-CE, Jerusalem, Knox, Douay-Rheims, etc.). However, I don’t know that there would be any translation today that is so completely awful that it wouldn’t be “safe to read”, provided the person understands that if a passage appears to be undermining a clear Catholic teaching, then they need to do some investigation rather than presuming Catholic teaching must therefore be in the wrong.
 
Thanks Father, I feel better about not knowing myself what this “valid” and “invalid” Bible business means, if an actual priest is confused as well.
 
Ambrose, ARE YOU AWARE, that the KJV fourth edition (1626) onwards included the glossed notes about Rome being the the Harlot of Babylon in the glossed study notes of Calvin. In fact, all the notes from the Geneva bible was included in the 1626 edition onwards?
 
CapitalistCatholic said:
I was going to debate whether the KJV version of the Bible was safe to use and read as a Christian. I am arguing for the reading of the KJV, as personal use though.
Click to expand...
Not much to debate. It’s okay as long as you realize it’s a Protestant Bible and leaves a lot of books out and translates others in a way not consistent with the Catholic Church.

It’s still pleasant to read sometimes for history’s sake, the wording is pretty and it makes me feel more unified with my Protestant relatives as the one I have was my father-in-law’s Bible. I’m very happy we’ve come a long way from Catholics not being able to marry Protestants or being told that if they were given a Protestant Bible they needed to chuck it in the fire under pain of mortal sin. We may actually manage to reunify the entire church one day yet again.

(I have at least three other Bibles, use the USCCB version for Mass and read the online Douay-Rheims or the first edition of the NAB for my Bible study…just finished four chapters of Genesis in the NAB for my Bible study today…so I don’t think that Dad M’s KJV is doing me any harm if I pray out of it from time to time and think of him.)
 
Last edited:
For all those who are interested in the subject here is a the comparison for accuracy against the NANTG 27 using lexical dictionaries as to the accuracy of bibles… the 1-15 are all critical text bibles based on WH or NA prepared texts
16 - 20 are majority text bibles

Name Relative agreement ranking
NASB New American Standard 1
ASV American Standard Version 2
NAU New American Standard (1995 update) 3
NAB New American Bible 4
ESV English Standard Version 5
HCS Holman Christian Standard 6
NRSV New Revised Standard Version 7
NET New English Translation 8
RSV Revised Standard Version 9
NIV New International Version 10
NJB New Jerusalem Bible 11
REB Revised English Bible 12
JNT Jewish New Testament 13
GNB Good News Bible 14
NLT New Living Translation 15
DRA Douay-Rheims (American edition) 16
TLB The Living Bible 17
MRD Murdock Peshitta translation 18
NKJV New King James Bible 19
KJV King James Version 20
 
Actually the KJV was translated to support some of Queen James’ claims. There was quite a bit of political meddling in that bible. But Queen James did keep the congregationalists from sinking their claws too far into the texts.
Click to expand...
We are speaking about King James I [who was the first of that regnal name in England and the sixth of Scotland]…the United Kingdom has had no Queen named “James”
 
Don_Ruggero said:
We are speaking about King James I [who was the first of that regnal name in England and the sixth of Scotland]…the United Kingdom has had no Queen named “James”
Click to expand...
Ummm, perhaps - just perhaps - the poster was referring to King James’s noted homosexuality. He was a bit of a Queen.
 
Thanks. By using that I have looked up the wikipedia. Will follow this line.
 
Questor
I have studied English history since I was a child, I do not make such a silly mistake. Perhaps someone here who is familiar with the english history could shed light on the matter for you … hint
[website deleted due to content of objectionable material]
Click to expand...
I have a very great familiarity with English history, as it happens.

I hope the moderators will thoughtfully analyse your posts in this thread…and the content of the link you have posted in this forum.
 
Last edited:
Hi Jestersage
The list of bibles and their relative adherence to the NANTG 27 is from wikipedia (FYI)
PS some of the contributions to that article are my own (Nestle Aland)
 
Last edited:
Who is " Queen" James??
Do you mean King James the son of Mary Stuart?
 
Quaestor said:
Oh please, I do not have a “familiarity” I have actually studied English history. Nice to know that once on the defense you need some “in authority” to rescue your sorry behind. If you do not know history, check first, post later. Instead, you had no clue as to what was alluded.

Now, pray tell us as to what exactly you found objectionable therein? the cheekiness or was it the sarcasm of the article which riled you? Or was it something which was not factual? Edify us all.
Click to expand...
Well, in my case, if I had only said that I had studied English history, that would have been to state only one small facet of a relationship to the history of the United Kingdom that goes quite beyond having studied it; it is, indeed, “familiar.”
 
Well I would hope the NASB, NAU and NAB would be up near the top because it’s my understanding the whole point of embarking on the NAB was to get a more accurate Bible translation from the original sources.

The problem is, I am getting old and can only handle so many revisions of readings that became familiar to me over years of hearing them. I can handle the latest NASB for church readings, but if I’m going to sit around reading a Bible, I want either my 70s NAB from high school, or the old Douay that was Mom’s, or something similarly old.
 
And why do you keep calling him " Queen"?
This is a historical character,King James I and VI.
Or shall we call him" cousin Jimmy " for the case…
 
Last edited:
Don_Ruggero said:
Well, in my case, if I had only said that I had studied English history, that would have been to state only one small facet of a relationship to the history of the United Kingdom that goes quite beyond having studied it; it is, indeed, “familiar.”
Click to expand...
I have studied history at an academic level but most of it was due the the amount of material I have read since the age of 5.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top