King James Bible

  • Thread starter Thread starter SeekerOfFaith20
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

SeekerOfFaith20

Guest
Hello!

Is the King James Bible approved as a decent translation according to the Catholic Church? I know it doesn’t include the deuteronomical books but is it worth using? I don’t have to cash to purchase a Douay Rheims at the time being.

Thanks!
 
kings james bible is no good its versus make no logical sense in my opinion
SeekerOfFaith20 said:
Hello!

Is the King James Bible approved as a decent translation according to the Catholic Church? I know it doesn’t include the deuteronomical books but is it worth using? I don’t have to cash to purchase a Douay Rheims at the time being.

Thanks!
Click to expand...
 
A reliable bible can be accessed at www.usccb.org

The KJV, besides not having certain books, also has enough changed words and phrases that can cause misunderstanding.

One may argue that the KJV is, say 90% there, but it is way too hard for the average reader to know which 10% is off the mark.
 
I have purchased several good Catholic bibles from thrift stores for $2.50 - 4.00. Or look on Craigslist. Best bet is to go frequently to thrift stores. You’ll find one eventually. 🙂
 
SeekerOfFaith20 said:
Hello!

Is the King James Bible approved as a decent translation according to the Catholic Church? I know it doesn’t include the deuteronomical books but is it worth using? I don’t have to cash to purchase a Douay Rheims at the time being.

Thanks!
Click to expand...
Meantime you can read the D-R Bible online along with the Haydock Commentary:

haydock1859.tripod.com/
 
It can’t be that bad since JESUS CHRIST’S signature is encoded throughout the entire KJV 66 books over and over again in various ways that clearly defy all chances of simply being coincidental.

See outersecrets.com/real/biblecode2a.htm for examples.

These samples also identify the specific kind of people who live by the rule of “Reject Before Inspect”, and do so as the result of allowing others to think for them since they can’t think for themselves. Even when they claim to be thinking for themselves, they will still bring forth conclusions drawn by “OTHERS” at earlier dates and are therefore still not thinking independently.
.
 
JesuisSean said:
It can’t be that bad since JESUS CHRIST’S signature is encoded throughout the entire KJV 66 books over and over again in various ways that clearly defy all chances of simply being coincidental.

See outersecrets.com/real/biblecode2a.htm for examples.

These samples also identify the specific kind of people who live by the rule of “Reject Before Inspect”, and do so as the result of allowing others to think for them since they can’t think for themselves. Even when they claim to be thinking for themselves, they will still bring forth conclusions drawn by “OTHERS” at earlier dates and are therefore still not thinking independently.
.
Click to expand...
:confused: :confused: :confused:, not the Bible code again! :eek:
 
I have a DR and a KJV and I find much of the language exactly the same. I actually prefer to use my KJV simply b/c I am more familiar with it - I can find passages much more easily in it since I studied so many years from it (when I was not Catholic). But I suppose it makes more sense to read from a Catholic bible with all of the books in it. I think in the meantime (before you can purchase a Catholic bible…) the KJV is “good enough” if you prefer to read from an actual book, but you can certainly read the DR online if that’s not inconvenient. I prefer to read from an actual book, but that’s me.
 
First, there are copies of the KJV w/Apocrypha available. I own two of them from Cambridge. I also own probably all the major translations, and, even as a Catholic, prefer the KJV over most. Yes, the DR has the same language, but frankly, the KJV reads more smoothly. (Particularly the single column paragraph format Cambridge Paragraph Bible).

As far as it not being “Catholic”? Please, considering the NAB, NABRE and NSRV rendering of certain versus; I feel pretty safe with the KJV for daily devotional purposes. If you compare it to say the DR, it is very, very similar.
 
I Hope that the Catholic Church does approve the King James Bible as a decent translation. I say this because the signature of Jesus Christ / God is encoded throughout the KJV Bible.

Do not forget that God created Time and Space, and thus he himself surrounds both time and space and thus sees across ALL time and ALL space. Thus when the Bible was written, via the guidance of God, all time was taken into account. From Gods point of view, there are no translations of the Bible, but instead just one multi-language Bible was written.

Translations are only seen when reality is observed from a primitive point of view, meaning mankind’s point of view, for we do not extend beyond all time, but we do move across time instead. Thus from our point of view, translations occur.

Concerning the KJV Bible Signitures, if you search for identifications, via Code, you get the right answers. For example…

“THE FATHER” is identified, via code, as “GOD”.
“THE LORD” is identified, via code, as “CHRIST”.

“THE FATHER” “THE SON” and " “THE HOLY SPIRIT” is identified, via code, as " GOD " and " CHRIST ".

“MARK” “OF GOD” is identified, via code, as the “ONE GOD”, and
“MARK” “OF GOD” is identified, via code, as the “JESUS CHRIST”.

“MARK OF” “JESUS” “CHRIST”, “AND GOD” is identified, via code, as the “CHRIST”. (forward KJV Bible scan)
“MARK OF” “JESUS” “CHRIST”, “AND GOD” is identified, via code, as the “CHRIST”. (reverse KJV Bible scan)

“MARK OF” “GOD AND”, “PROPHET” “CHRIST” is identified, via code, as the “JESUS CHRIST”. (forward KJV Bible scan)
“MARK OF” “GOD AND”, “PROPHET” “CHRIST” is identified, via code, as the “JESUS CHRIST”. (reverse KJV Bible scan)

“MARK OF” “GOD AND”, “JESUS” “CHRIST” is identified, via code, as the "ONE JESUS CHRIST ". (forward KJV Bible scan)
“MARK OF” “GOD AND”, “JESUS” “CHRIST” is identified, via code, as the "ONE JESUS CHRIST ". (reverse KJV Bible scan)

And the proof of encoded signatures goes on and on…

Unfortunately today, any proof of the validity of the Bible is almost always banned in an instant. The argument is that we are to merely “BELIEVE” in the validity of the Bible, and that is all that is to be allowed, period. This is a worrying circumstance since it is only those who claim to be religious folk who had banned such proof, and to make it even worse, they banned such proof prior to having even studied the proof itself. On the science side, the proof was banned by scientifically examining “FALSE PROOF” of the validity of the Bible, and then from that they they concluded that there is no proof at all, thus there is no need to study any other forms of proof that are presented here onward.

Thus the proof was rejected by both the Religious and Science fields.

Both fields are fields of incompleteness, thus both can exist at the same time. If one was complete, there would be no room for the other. Thus those within both fields of incompleteness have chosen to remain at a distance from completeness. Between incompleteness and completeness there is a GAP. The gap provides the Satan character with plenty of space to work within to deceive the whole world since the whole world is not interested in the complete truth.

.
 
The original King James did in fact include the deutero canonical works. It is not church approved for a few reasons but it certainly is a good translation.

If you are ok with the way the KJV reads the Douay will read very similarly. Both are old english. More modern church approved are the RSV-CE (catholic edition). The appendix in the back of my RSV-CE gives the changes from the base RSV text. In general it seems if you take the alternate translation footnotes in an RSV CE you wind up with the RSV-CE text Both RSV and RSV-CE include all the books, though not all RSV is published with them. Other newer and much more modern versions exist like whats over at USCCB.org.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top