King James Bible?

  • Thread starter Thread starter followingtheway
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
As a Protestant, the KJV was my main bible. Since returning to Catholicism, my copies are now starting to collect dust - I may just give them away. Why use the KJV, a Protestant translation, if there’s the Douay-Rheims - the complete Bible based on the Latin Vulgate. Also: I think the ESV is overrated, while the NIV is way too dynamic and paraphrase-heavy for my liking. Besides, there’s the NAB if you like dynamic equivalence. And I’ll take the NRSV-CE over the ESV any day.
 
athenasius said:
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.🙂
Click to expand...
In fact, I was able to acquire a 1611 KJV with apocrypha at Family Christian Stores, a Protestant Evangelical oriented bookstore. Lifeway, which is either owned by or in bed with the Southern Baptist Convention, will let you special order a Bible with the deuterocanonical books, though it will probably be a Protestant edition with the “Apocrypha” in a separate section and it will include at least some of the Orthodox-only books as well.
 
Absolutely OK, in my book at least. It is actually fast becoming my favorite translation due to a number of things, not the least of which the way it “flows”. For years now I have read from the DR and the RSV-CE, but when I started looking for a high quality, long lasting Bible, I found the Catholic editions in what I was looking for were very, very rare.

Anyway, to those that say it doesn’t have all the books, simply look for one with the Apocrypha. Sure, they will be in at the end of the OT, or somewhere else, but they are there. In some cases, including the books that even the Orthodox consider canonical. (i.e., Pslam 151, Macabees 3, 4 etc.

The more I read the KJV, the more I enjoy it. To be frank, I know the argument about the DR being older, more accurate etc., but what most fail to realize, or speak of, is that the Challoner version, which is what you will buy when buying a “new” DR, took a lot of inspiration from the KJV, and is not “older”. Also, having read both, again, to be frank, I prefer the way the KJV reads over the DR. While it may be poetic preference, I prefer things such as the rendering of Pslam 23, as well as other sections in the KJV, over just about any other translation, including the DR.

I’m really looking forward to receiving a copy of the a KJV Cameo Reference Edition w\Apocrypha I have on order from Cambridge as soon as it come in. I’m getting the feeling it’s going to be my favorite overall. 🙂
 
patrick457 said:
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.
…
Click to expand...
Apparently there have been quite a few humorous (well, humorous nowadays) misprints in printings of the KJV, including
“Go and sin on more” instead of “Go and sin no more” (the “Sin On” Bible)
“Shall I bring to birth and not cease to bring forth?” instead of “Shall I bring to birth and not cause to bring forth?” (the “Large Family” Bible)
“For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted God, adorned themselves, being in subjection to their owl husbands.” instead of “…their own husbands.” (The “Owl” Bible)

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_errata
 
Yes. Read Isaiah 53 or Psalm 23 for an example of this. No other translation equals the beauty of the King James Bible. I still use it as my main Bible, although I usually pull out my NAB Catholic Bible to compare passages.
 
I have two KJV bibles. One is a Giant Print Reference and the other is a Tyndale Life Application Study Bible (which is also large print). I quite enjoy them. 🙂
 
“You can’t appreciate English literature unless you are steeped to some extent in the King James Bible. People don’t know that proverbial phrases which make echoes in their minds come from this Bible. We are a Christian culture, we come from a Christian culture and not to know the King James Bible, is to be in some small way, barbarian”.
Click to expand...
-Richard Dawkins, Oxford scholar, author, and atheist (kingjamesbibletrust.org/news/2010/02/19/richard-dawkins-lends-his-support-to-the-king-james-bible-trust) 😃
 
Include my vote on the side of “must be familiar with” if you want to be a literate English reader.
 
I have also noticed on these threads that if you are debating a Mormon or evangelical / fundamentalist poster and you provide your bible quotes from KJV, you can avoid getting getting wrapped around the axle on translation issues.
 
JHow said:
But the original question was should a catholic even read KJV? Not, is the KJV the best text for mass. It’s a bit of a difference, in my view.
Click to expand...
As a Catholic we are called for a degree of loyalty to the Church. Some may see it as a trivial matter in choosing which bible to read, but every little decision matters in determining our Identity as faithful Catholics.
 
Here’s another way I look at it: If you put the Douay-Rheims and KJV side by side, you’re going to encounter different meanings in quite a few verses. The question is - if you’re not a biblical scholar, which version would you prefer to have instilled in your mind? A difference here and there can make a world of difference. I’m thankful for having the KJV as a thorough introduction to the Bible, but I would rather memorize the DRV for spiritual wellbeing and warfare.

Also, the 1611 KJV (as far as I know) has archaic spelling and some minor differences, which is distracting - plus the “apocrypha” is set aside to a section, emphasizing that these books have less authority. Ironically, most KJV-Onlyists don’t even use this version but the 1769 one. KJV-Onlyism (while it has good intentions for the most part) is perhaps one of the sillier beliefs in all of Christianity.
 
Reading the King James bible is fine (and better than not reading) but it’s good to keep in mind that to derive or formulate Catholic thought on its scripture is not recommended.
 
athenasius said:
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.🙂
Click to expand...
I’m a ‘newly-minted’ Anglican and find this debate over translations of the Bible fascinating though, coming from an academic background, I can’t help but disagree with those of you who would only read a Bible that had been approved by somebody ‘in authority’. You just read it, you don’t have to agree with it!😃

That said, my favourite Bible is a Catholic NRSV, with the Apocrypha(I love Sirach, except for his distasteful rants against women:dts:). Can you tell me which seven Books are missing from the KJV?

Regards

melbanglican
 
melbanglican said:
That said, my favourite Bible is a Catholic NRSV, with the Apocrypha(I love Sirach, except for his distasteful rants against women:dts:). Can you tell me which seven Books are missing from the KJV?

Regards

melbanglican
Click to expand...
What he meant is, in that many modern editions of the King James Version, the Apocrypha section originally present in the 1611 edition is omitted entirely.
 
I just might add something:

Frederick William Faber (1814-1863), a convert to Catholicism (he was a follower of Cardinal Newman) and the man who composed the well-known hymn Faith of Our Fathers, was actually a firm supporter of the KJV even after his conversion.

If the Aryan heresy was propagated and rooted by means of beautiful vernacular hymns, so who will say that the uncommon beauty and marvellous English of the Protestant Bible is not one of the great strongholds of heresy in this country? It lives in the ear like a music that can never be forgotten; like the sound of church bells, which the convert hardly knows how he can forego. Its felicities often seem to be almost things rather than words. It is part of the national mind and the anchor of the national seriousness. Nay, it is worshipped with a positive idolatry, in exenuation of whose grotesque fanaticism its intrinsic beauty pleads availingly with the man of letters and the scholar. The memory of the dead passes into it. The potent traditions of childhood are stereotyped in its verses. The power of all the griefs and trials of a man is hidden beneath its words. It is the representative of his best moments, and all that there has been about him of soft, and gentle, and pure, and penitent, and good, speaks to him forever out of his English Bible. It is his sacred thing which doubt never dimmed and controversy never soiled. It has been with him all along as the silent, but O how intelligible voice, of his guardian angel; and in the length and breadth of the land there is not a Protestant, with one spark of religiousness about him, whose spiritual biography is not in his Saxon Bible. And all this is an unhallowed power! The extinction of the Establishment would be a less step towards the conquest of the national mind, than, if it were possible (but we are speaking humanly and in our ignorance), to adopt that Bible, and correct it by the Vulgate. As it is, there is no blessing of the Church along with it, and who would dream that beauty was better than a blessing?
  • ‘An essay on the interest and characteristics of the Lives of the Saints’, from The Life of S. Francis of Assisi (London, 1853), pp. 116-7
 
melbanglican said:
I’m a ‘newly-minted’ Anglican and find this debate over translations of the Bible fascinating though, coming from an academic background, I can’t help but disagree with those of you who would only read a Bible that had been approved by somebody ‘in authority’. You just read it, you don’t have to agree with it!😃
Click to expand...
That’s a good point. Still, having read both, and enjoying the period English, I decided I like the Douay-Rheims better and even the old Confraternity Version. These are just my preferences though.
That said, my favourite Bible is a Catholic NRSV, with the Apocrypha(I love Sirach, except for his distasteful rants against women:dts:).
Click to expand...
My favorite verse from Sirach is 8:5 which says, “5] Do not reproach a man who is turning away from sin; remember that we all deserve punishment.”
Can you tell me which seven Books are missing from the KJV?
Click to expand...
Regards
Click to expand...
melbanglican
Click to expand...
In the words of J.R.R. Tolkien, “that’s a dreadfully easy chestnut”.

They are:


  1. *]1st Maccabees
    *]2nd Maccabees
    *]Sirach
    *]Wisdom
    *]Baruch
    *]Tobit
    *]Judith

    …as well as parts of Daniel and Esther.
 
Many thanks to all who responded so kindly to my post, especially to Church Militant! I’m going to buy a Douay-Rheims (Baronius Pub) because:
  1. the glued binding of my beloved NRSV-CE has started to come apart.
  2. I want another bible with the Apocrypha.
  3. the Baronius bibles all have sewn bindings!
So, I may have to wait a little while for it to arrive, but I’m certain that it will be worth it. I’ll also buy one of the new ESV Study Bibles, just to show my ‘balanced outlook’ (and because they have a wonderful collection of maps).

All in all, it’s been a great week for me.:extrahappy: Thank you for helping to make it so, and have a good weekend with your loved ones and with God!

Regards

melbanglican
 
Church_Militant said:
In the words of J.R.R. Tolkien, “that’s a dreadfully easy chestnut”.

They are:


  1. *]1st Maccabees
    *]2nd Maccabees
    *]Sirach
    *]Wisdom
    *]Baruch
    *]Tobit
    *]Judith

    …as well as parts of Daniel and Esther.
Click to expand...

  1. …In addition to Prayer of Manasses, and 1 and 2 Esdras (3 and 4 Esdras in the Vulgate).

    All in all, here are the ‘missing’ books with their titles:

    http://img146.imageshack.us/img146/7884/kjvcanon1611.jpg
    1. ]I. Esdras*
      ]II. Esdras*
      ]Tobit*
      ]Ivdeth*
      ]The rest of the Chapters of the Booke of Esther, which are found neither in the Hebrew, nor in the Calde*
      ]The Wisedome of Solomon*
      ]The Wisdome of Iesus the sonne of Sirach, Or Ecclesiasticus*
      ]Baruch* (with The Epistle of Ieremie)
      ][And Nabuchodonosor.]*
      ]The historie of Susanna, set apart from the beginning of Daniel, because it is not in Hebrew, as neither the narration of †Bel and the Dragon* † Gr. Bels Dragon]
      ]The history of the destruction of †Bel and the Dragon † Gr. Bels Dragon], cut off from the end of Daniel**
      ]The prayer of Manasses King of Iuda, vvhen he vvas holden captiue in Babylon
      ]      The first booke of the Maccabees*
      ]The second booke of the Maccabees*
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top