King James Bible?

  • Thread starter Thread starter followingtheway
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
F

followingtheway

Guest
Is it okay for a Catholic to read the King James Bible?
 
Yes it is okay because I read it,but prefer the NKJV. However, my advice is buy one with footnotes and compare it with a Catholic Bible which also has footnotes. I even read the NIV and ESV,both are good Bibles.

Peace.
 
There is nothing sinnful about using a King James Bible, but it is not a catholic bible so there will be seven less books. You would probably be better off just using a good Catholic bible.🙂
 
I voted yes, but that doesn’t mean that it’s as reliable as Catholic bibles. I’d stick with versions approved by bishops or the Vatican (NAB, RSV-CE, etc.) in general. But it’s probably good to use when dealing with Baptists.
 
srferdave said:
So it is OK to read it because Nicea reads it. Is Nicea god? I’m not saying it’s not OK to read it. But it isn’t OK to read it because Nicea reads it. 😉
Click to expand...
I was being sarcastic with my yes (I used the sarcastic smiley so my point would get across). 👍
 
yes, but it is incomplete. Also do a side by side with the likes of a Douay-Rheims there are some differences. I made a compairison list once but I don’t know were it went:shrug:
 
Its not the best bible, but is generally better than most modern protestant translations. Get a copy that includes the deuterocanon(called here “Apocrypha”, and inc some of the orthadox books too), as that is the original full unabridged King James 1611 version, and those without it are not complete “unabriged” editions, but modern versions that have dropped it in favor of cheaper printing costs.
 
whether you or I like the KJV is irrelevant what does matter is where the Catholic Church stands on its use. I seem to recall that the church used to burn this translation. Perhaps its time to bring back that practice or do a trade in (one KJV for one Holy Bible).
 
I would never read it, because it is incomplete and it is not a Catholic Bible.
 
Just don’t use it as your main bible. Unless you’re an Anglican disguised as a Catholic :eek: 😛
 
It is inappropriate to say this version is to be burned/exchanged partly because as a translation, it is closer to catholic versions than most modern protestant translations. Also no translation is a perfect translation, and this translation had major flaws but also major virtues.

Secondly because it did in fact contain originally in the “classic edition”(the 1611 version and other unabridged copies) the deuterocanon, much like catholic editions of the “Good News Version”, as a seperate section. So it did in fact have all the books, even the orthadox books, in the original print. A fact often overlooked by most lay catholic critics.

Thirdly I can proove to you, it is sold in it’s full unabridged version in catholic bookshops because I’ve seen it with my own eyes. sadly can’t say the same for catholic bibles at protestant book sellers… cannot even say the same for the classic full edition of the KJV at these same shops. But Borders has it anyway!

I don’t use the KJV(I have an abridged modern version sadly), I have a catholic version of the good news edition that I love reading, and also carry a douay rheims for a more traditional translation.
 
followingtheway said:
Is it okay for a Catholic to read the King James Bible?
Click to expand...
The KJV is actually very close to the Vulgate of St. Jerome. It is actually one of the most accurate translations if you compare it with the Greek NT, the Sept. and the Vulgate.

It has the best literary value of any English translation.
 
sarah94 said:
I would never read it, because it is incomplete and it is not a Catholic Bible.
Click to expand...
Oh, completetoo, I’d tell you. That is, if you’re using the original 1611 edition and not one of those mutilated editions that folks pass around as a ‘King James Version’ these days. 😛
 
Califman831 said:
whether you or I like the KJV is irrelevant what does matter is where the Catholic Church stands on its use. I seem to recall that the church used to burn this translation. Perhaps its time to bring back that practice or do a trade in (one KJV for one Holy Bible).
Click to expand...
Source? I don’t know about the KJV. Considering that Catholics were having a hard time within the islands (though there was a measure of tolerance around the time of James I - though less so after the discovery of the Gunpowder Plot), I doubt they were in a fit state to hold book-burning rallies. On the contrary, it was the Anglicans themselves who burned copies of the KJV, not so much for foul doctrine but because of very fatal typographical errors. Also, due to the Civil War of 1642, Bible printing in England languished, but because of the high demand poorly executed, error-filled versions were imported from places such as Holland.

William Kilburne wrote in 1659 a pamphlet entitled Dangerous Errors in Several Late Printed Bibles complaining of such typographical errors:

You may well remember that the zeal and care of the late Bishops (especially of reverend and learned Doctor Usher) was such, that for the omission in one impression of the Bible of the negative word not] in the seventh Commandment, the Printer was fined £2000 or £3000 in the late King’s time, as I have heard, which happened long before the late wars began: In which time through the absence of the King’s Printers, and cessation of Bible Printing at London, many erroneous English Bibles were printed in, and imported from Holland; which, being diligently compared by the late Assembly of Divines, were reported to the Parliament in 1643 to be corrupt, and dangerous to Religion; exhibiting to them these three faults only; for which the impression was suppressed and condemned to the fire, and a Prohibition made against the importation of any English Bibles for the future.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top