King James Bible question

  • Thread starter Thread starter Byzantine_Wolf
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

Byzantine_Wolf

Guest
Sorry if this has been asked before, but I had a quick question regarding the King James Bible and Catholic history.

I recently came across a King James Only website where the author made this statement:
The King James is the only version I am aware of that is banned by the Catholic church to be read in their churches.
Click to expand...
The Pope put an imprimatur on it hundreds of years ago forbidding it to be read. It is still in effect today.
Click to expand...
Can anyone verify if this is true? If so, which “imprimatur” is it, and what does it really say?
 
I thought “Imprimatur” meant that it was approved for printing. If so, then that website doesn’t even know what it’s talking about by saying that the KJV had an “imprimatur” for “forbid” reading it.

But I admit I could be wrong about what “Imprimatur” means.
 
This is so funny it’s pitiful. Or maybe an example of bathos.

“Imprimatur” simply means “It may be printed.”

It’s VERY unlikely that the Pope or any Roman Bishop would attempt to ban the KJV by giving it an “Imprimatur.”

Obviously, the person who said this doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

Most adherents of the KJVO superstition (and that’s what it is; I’m saying nothing agains the the KJV itself) simply revel in their own ignorance.

There was a KJVO coventicle somewhere who were so burdened that their Spanish speaking neighbors didn’t have a REAL Spanish King James Bible, obviously ignorant that the Protestant Spanish Reina-Valera translation predated the KJV, and was one of the “previous translations diligently compared” by the KJV committee.

So they set to work on the New Testament, and translated “Holy Ghost”, not as Espiritu Santo, as proper Spanish would require, but as Santa Fantasma: holy hobgoblin or sacred spook.

Once on another set of boards, I had a run-in with an independent Orthodox clergyman (who was actually a member of some Byzantine-rite White Identity group) who accused me of “rejecting the tradition of the Church” when I pointed out a few flaws in the KJV.

I asked him which Orthodox Ecumenical council had approved of this Protestant translation–and I never heard from him again.
 
I am not sure, but it seems to me this is a statement that contains a grain of truth but a lot of error.
 
Yeah. LOL! “Imprimatur” is a GOOD thing. Their attempts are a little pathetic.
 
Slight bump…

Just curious, error regarding the meaning of a word aside, does anyone know if a pope or the Catholic Church banned the KJV at all? The online Catholic Encyclopedia mentions the Catholic Church didn’t like the KJV, but says nothing of a ban.
 
I’m not sure if the Church ever banned the KJV. It’s something I feel like I should know and will have to look into.

However, I can say a few things about what it would and would not have meant if the accusation is true (which, again, it is just as likely that it is not true).

First, if the Catholic Church banned the KJV, this does not mean that the Church was forbidding the reading of Scripture in general. It only means that they had problems with this particular translation (and from what I’ve read about the KJV, there are problems in spades).

Second, if the Catholic Church banned the KJV, it likely would have been related to the Reformation. At that time, there was a tremendous amount of confusion. The Church may have felt it necessary to ban certain translations that fed into Protestant scriptural innovations. With all the confusion, it was perfectly reasonable for the Church to send the clear message about certain books (and possibly translations of Scripture) to help the faithful sort the good from the bad.

Again, I am not sure if it is historically accurate that the Church banned the KJV at any point in time, but if it was banned, the above would be a likely explanation.
 
Okay, a few points to clear up here.

One, only the Vulgate was allowed to be read in Mass, because all Masses were celebrated in Latin until Vatican II. IF the KJV was specifically prohibited, it was likely because of this.

Two, English only became a prominent language in the world in the 18th and 19th centuries, when the British Empire became a superpower. Being that Catholicism was de facto banned in England and Scotland at the time the KJV was printed, and Ireland was not in full union with Britain until 1800, it’s not as if millions of people suddenly loss access to the Bible because of a supposed KJV ban.

Thirdly, the KJV, while beautiful in its literary qualities, is a rather poor translation that was specifically commissioned to support Protestant doctrines.
 
Since I am Protestant; I cannot speak to whether or not the Catholic Church ever banned the King James Version.

If I remember correctly, three of the most valuable witnesses to the New Testament, the Vatican, the Sinaitic, the Alexandrian Manuscripts were not available when the KJV was made. Please correct me if I am wrong.

The “Faith Tab” of this website does discuss Bible Translations.
Link: catholic.com/library/Bible_Translations_Guide.asp

I quoted some paragraphs below. It discusses** “King James-onlyism”** some Protestants proclaim (I am not one of them.)
catholic.com/library/Bible_Translations_Guide.asp
Click to expand...
Bible Translations Guide, What is the Best Bible?
Click to expand...
. . . Some Protestants will tell you that the only acceptable version of the Bible is the King James. This position is known as King James-onlyism. Its advocates often make jokes such as, “If the King James Version was good enough for the apostle Paul, it is good enough for me,” or, “My King James Version corrects your Greek text.”
Click to expand...
They commonly claim that the King James is based on the only perfect set of manuscripts we have (a false claim; there is no perfect set of manuscripts; and the ones used for the KJV were compiled by a Catholic, Erasmus), that it is the only translation that avoids modern, liberal renderings, and that its translators were extremely saintly and scholarly men.
Click to expand...
Since the King James is also known as “the Authorized Version” (AV), its advocates sometimes argue that it is the only version to ever have been “authorized.” To this one may point out that it was only authorized in the Anglican church, which now uses other translations. For a still-in print critique of King James-onlyism, see D. A. Carson, The King James Version Debate, A Plea for Realism (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979).
Click to expand...
As amusing as King James-onlyism may sound, some people take it very seriously. There is even a Catholic equivalent, which we might call “Douay-Rheims-onlyism.” The Douay-Rheims version, which predates the King James by a few years, (the complete KJV was published in 1611, but the complete Douay-Rheims in 1609) was the standard Bible for English-speaking Catholics until the twentieth century.
Click to expand...
What many advocates of both King James-onlyism and Douay-Rheims-onlyism do not know is that neither Bible is the original issued in the 1600s. Over the last three centuries, numerous minor changes (for example, of spelling and grammar) have been made in the King James, with the result that most versions of the KJV currently on the market are significantly different from the original. This has led one publisher to recently re-issue the 1611 King James Version Bible.
Click to expand...
The Douay-Rheims currently on the market is also not the original, 1609 version. It is technically called the “Douay-Challoner” version because it is a revision of the Douay-Rheims done in the mid-eighteenth century by Bishop Richard Challoner. He also consulted early Greek and Hebrew manuscripts, meaning that the Douay Bible currently on the market is not simply a translation of the Vulgate (which many of its advocates do not realize).
Click to expand...
We recommend staying away from translations with unconventional renderings, such as the TEV, and suggest using the Revised Standard Version- Catholic Edition. This is a Church-approved version of the RSV that has a few, minor changes in the New Testament. It has been reissued by Ignatius Press under the title The Ignatius Bible (available from Catholic Answers in both hardcover and paperback formats).
Click to expand...
**This is a quote from the Introduction to the Catholic Edition of the Revised Standard Version, found in the The Catholic Comparative New Testament (which I have and refer to often):
**
This edition of the Revised Standard Version of the Bible has been prepared for the use of Catholics by a committee of the Catholic Biblical Association of Great Britain. It is published with ecclesiastical approval and by agreement with the Standard Bible Committee and the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States. . . .** A small committee of members of the Catholic Bible Association was formed and permission obtained to examine this translation and suggest any changes that might be required to make it acceptable to Catholics. The Standard Bible Committee of the U.S.A. was then approached and they gave warm welcome to the proposal.**
Click to expand...
To my surprise, a non-Catholic Bible (used in the Protestant sector,) became the basis for a Catholic approved Bible–it was edited for Catholic use. I have both the Protestant RSV and the RSV-Catholic Edition. There were surprisingly few changes made to the Catholic Edition.

The Revised Standard Version- Catholic Edition, has been reissued under the title: The Ignatius Bible.

Anna
 
Forgive me if this is a derailling question, but I thought protestants and catholics considered only Jesus their King. Why would a christian want a bible titled “King James Version” to begin with?:confused:
 
what I find interesting is that the original King James Bibles (and beyond… I have one from 1865) contains the Apocrypha! I know many Protestants who think the Apocrypha is wrong who are King James people!
 
SecretPlace said:
what I find interesting is that the original King James Bibles (and beyond… I have one from 1865) contains the Apocrypha! I know many Protestants who think the Apocrypha is wrong who are King James people!
Click to expand...
Um, why would having the Apocrypha in it be bad? Isn’t it listed in their index as Apocrypha? Or are you talking about the Deutoro’s?:confused:

What are you talking about?
 
StrawberryJam said:
Forgive me if this is a derailling question, but I thought protestants and catholics considered only Jesus their King. Why would a christian want a bible titled “King James Version” to begin with?:confused:
Click to expand...
Ha ha, I remember asking in high school why devout Christians were OK with call medieval leaders “lord.” The teacher had to explain the difference between the two uses of the word to me.

In regards to the title “King James Version,” or KJV, the official title was actually “the Authorized Version,” and in fact some people know it as the “1611 Authorized King James” Bible. The title King James merely refers to King James I, who gave the go to make the Bible and who funded it.
 
Byzantine_Wolf said:
Ha ha, I remember asking in high school why devout Christians were OK with call medieval leaders “lord.” The teacher had to explain the difference between the two uses of the word to me.

In regards to the title “King James Version,” or KJV, the official title was actually “the Authorized Version,” and in fact some people know it as the “1611 Authorized King James” Bible. The title King James merely refers to King James I, who gave the go to make the Bible and who funded it.
Click to expand...
I did not mean to sound sarcastic, I was simply wondering about objections to the title on the actual bible. Perhaps my being an American has a bit to do with the objection.:o

I admit, the concern is not relevant based on what you state. I just wish things like this would be considered by protestants who insist on “where is that in the bible?”

KWIM?
 
Some Protestants are on the down low, but then you have the KJV-only people who have ideas like, “If your bible contradicts the lexicon, throw out the lexicon!”
 
Byzantine_Wolf said:
Some Protestants are on the down low, but then you have the KJV-only people who have ideas like, “If your bible contradicts the lexicon, throw out the lexicon!”
Click to expand...
What are they left with then? :confused:

Serious question.
 
StrawberryJam said:
What are they left with then? :confused:

Serious question.
Click to expand...
Ah, this is the mind of the KJV-Only individual. They have their King James Bible, the untarnished word of God…

…cause you know…Christ allowed the Church to have the wrong translation for 1600 years. :rolleyes:
 
Byzantine_Wolf said:
Ah, this is the mind of the KJV-Only individual. They have their King James Bible, the untarnished word of God…

…cause you know…Christ allowed the Church to have the wrong translation for 1600 years. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
I think Jesus specifically did not ask men to write down anything for a reason. He wanted men to trust the ones he chose.
 
StrawberryJam said:
I think Jesus specifically did not ask men to write down anything for a reason. He wanted men to trust the ones he chose.
Click to expand...
Blessed are you, StrawberryJam, for you are on to something 😃

Have you ever noticed Christ always confirmed something through other people? Few things were ever, “Take my word for it,” and almost everything He did had witnesses. Muslims often argue that Jesus never said, “I am God,” and that’s because He always had others say what He was. He asked His apostles what people said He was (Matt 16:13), then asked what they thought (Matt 16:15), to which Peter gives the right answer. Likewise, there were witnesses to His transfiguration, crucifixion, resurrection and ascension. This went further on, with witnesses to Paul’s conversion and the confirmation of Paul’s apostleship through Ananias.

The gospels are written, as you said, by men whom God entrusted to write. Even though people say it means it can’t be trusted, one can only imagine things wouldn’t be different the other way around - if Jesus had written the gospels, people could have shrugged it off as the imagination of some madman.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top