King James Bible

  • Thread starter Thread starter bigbear62040
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

bigbear62040

Guest
Growing up in a southern baptist church, I always used a King James Bible, but since I became catholic I’ve been told that the King James version is the “evil” bible. What gives? I have only been a practising catholic since Easter of 2006 and I am still learning about my faith. What bible should I,as a catholic, read?
 
bigbear62040 said:
Growing up in a southern baptist church, I always used a King James Bible, but since I became catholic I’ve been told that the King James version is the “evil” bible. What gives? I have only been a practising catholic since Easter of 2006 and I am still learning about my faith. What bible should I,as a catholic, read?
Click to expand...
Evil? I don’t think so. Incomplete though - you really need to find a Bible that includes the so-called Deuterocanonical and Apocryphal books (Sirach, Baruch, Tobit, Macabees and so on). These books have been part of the canon of the Bible (which was set by the Catholic Church, after all, so we should know!) since the councils of Hippo and Carthage in the 300s.

And I believe some passages in the KJV were deliberately translated with an eye to making them sound less supportive of the Catholic position than they really are.

If you like the older-style language of the KJV then the best Bible for you would be the Douay-Rheims. This was translated a little earlier than the KJV and is in much the same style. Otherwise the Revised Standard Version CE (Catholic Edition) would be a good choice.
 
bigbear62040 said:
Growing up in a southern baptist church, I always used a King James Bible, but since I became catholic I’ve been told that the King James version is the “evil” bible. What gives? I have only been a practising catholic since Easter of 2006 and I am still learning about my faith. What bible should I,as a catholic, read?
Click to expand...
If you like the King James Bible…the most similar Catholic Bible would be the Douay-Rheims.

It is also my personal favorite, and has other benefits.
  1. Its translated from the Latin Vulgate.
  2. It often comes with extra encylicals and resources that are really good for Catholics.
  3. It has beautiful language/
  4. Its the Bible the English Catholic world has used the longest.
 
I recommend the Revised Standard Version - Catholic Edition, sometimes known as the Ignatius Bible.
As for the King James Version, I wouldn’t call it “evil”- just incomplete. It’s missing some books of the canon, and I’m told the Ignatius Bible is a better, more accurate translation in any case.
May the peace of Christ be always with you.BigBear.:gopray:
 
I’ll agree with most of what was said in posts 2,3, and 4. Nonetheless, if you’re really partial to the KJV after browsing other suggested Bibles, stick with that. It is a good translation, even if it lacks in the areas mentioned above. The best Bible is the one you read.
 
**Regardless what version you have, the first thing you need to be aware of is that the inspired Word of God was not written in English. I know that may sound elementary to most folks on this forum, but there are many that do not know this.

The Hebrew Bible was written in Hebrew.
The Christian Bible was written in Greek.

I suggest you buy yourself a Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible. It will help you look up everytime a word is used in the Bible and give the original Hebrew\Greek word that it was translated from. That is a good starting point to expand your vocabulary.

Here is a couple website I use frequently:

nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/index.htm#sirach
searchgodsword.org/
scripture4all.org/

**
 
Missa SolemnisIf you like the King James Bible…the most similar Catholic Bible would be the Douay-Rheims.

It is also my personal favorite, and has other benefits.
  1. Its translated from the Latin Vulgate.
  2. It often comes with extra encylicals and resources that are really good for Catholics.
  3. It has beautiful language/
  4. Its the Bible the English Catholic world has used the longest
Click to expand...
I wll add that if you read the Early Church Fathers (and I suggest you do, as you study your new Catholic faith) you wll find that the Douay-Rheims is most similar to the version they quote from.
I also consider it to be the most theologically correct, though I am not a scholar or a theologian, as far as making sense with the teachi8ngs and Traditions of the Church, as well.
 
Most of the KJV is word to word translation, as opposed to restructuring sentences. Sentence/phrase restructuring is something that is done sometimes if there are colloquialisms (which it can be difficult to distinguish vernacular metaphors from). Some words are broken apart into more words and there is some discretion there as well. Infrequently there are restructuring issues where it is not proper English language form.

This is likely due to the King James Bible’s effect on the English language. There are some mucked up verses where the translator was either being aureate, terse or grammatically incorrect. These instances should be corrected or clarified. It also helps if the olde English is removed as it tends to add superficial words.

The most radical translations paraphrase verses. And the paraphasing can be selectively done at times as opposed to a children’s bible. That leads to KJV adherents. I personally like the ESV. I think it fixes many difficulties that the KJV has trouble with and maintains structure.

Word changes occur often times because of there being so many translations that simply changing a verse or two starts to encroach on reputation of validity of other translations and also copyrights.

Sometimes words become stumbling blocks. For instance the word agent as opposed to angel as opposed to prophet. I could say “Mohomad is a prophet” for instance and Muslims would all agree with me. I could say “Mohomad is an agent” and Homeland Securing might start following me around. I could say “Mohomad is an angel” and I might get arguments from all over and even some laughs. The context in which the word is used is more important however. When speaking of Most of the KJV is word to word translation, as opposed to restructuring sentences. Sentence/phrase restructuring is something that is done sometimes if there are colloquialisms (which it can be difficult to distinguish vernacular metaphors from). Some words are broken apart into more words and there is some discretion there as well. Infrequently there are restructuring issues where it is not proper English language form.

This is likely due to the King James Bible’s effect on the English language. There are some mucked up verses where the translator was either being aureate, terse or grammatically incorrect. These instances should be corrected or clarified. It also helps if the olde English is removed as it tends to add superficial words.

The most radical translations paraphrase verses. And the paraphasing can be selectively done at times as opposed to a children’s bible. That leads to KJV adherents. I personally like the ESV. I think it fixes many difficulties that the KJV has trouble with and maintains structure.

Word changes occur often times because of there being so many translations that simply changing a verse or two starts to encroach on reputation of validity of other translations and also copyrights.

Sometimes words become stumbling blocks. For instance the word agent as opposed to angel as opposed to prophet. I could say “Mohomad is a prophet” for instance and Muslims would all agree with me. I could say “Mohomad is an agent” and Homeland Security might start following me around. I could say “Mohomad is an angel” and I might get arguments from all over and even some laughs. The context in which the word is used is more important however. When speaking of Mohomad I should just say Mohomad rather then slap him with labels. Scripture does this however and it is best not to let ancient scripture get itself in trouble in modern society.
 
KJV
57 And they were offended in him. But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, save in his own country, and in his own house.
ESV
57 And they took offense at him. But Jesus said to them, A prophet is not without honor except in his hometown and in his own household.

The word “in” after offended, there are two points of contextual reference to determine that it is the person Jesus says he is that they are offended by not what he says so much, which “in” implies. The KJV is also double past tense.

The word “country” is not correct to say today because “country” is not backwards compatible. The inference “country” has makes the statement true today but not in the same way then thereby giving it two meanings were there was only one. Hence it falsifies the statement prior to it being made. If you want to break out of the term “hometown” today and apply it to countries that’s fine by deductive logic but that deductive premise has to remain or else you add to the statement.

(Jesus also doesn’t have any place to rest his head either so house might be misleading.)
 
another point, in KJV, the word “Saint” does not imply those saints in heaven but those living on earth. This mistake leads to the differences between Catholic and non-catholic. For Catholic, we believe the Saints in Heaven pray for us. For non-catholic, some says those prayers are not prayers but “praise only”, and some other says those prayers are of people living on Earth.

Therefore, it is important to pick a Bible if you want to practice your faith. If you don’t know much about Catholic, and read KJV, you can get confused.
 
tabcom said:
**Regardless what version you have, the first thing you need to be aware of is that the inspired Word of God was not written in English. I know that may sound elementary to most folks on this forum, but there are many that do not know this.

The Hebrew Bible was written in Hebrew.
The Christian Bible was written in Greek.

I suggest you buy yourself a Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible. It will help you look up everytime a word is used in the Bible and give the original Hebrew\Greek word that it was translated from. That is a good starting point to expand your vocabulary.

Here is a couple website I use frequently:

nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/index.htm#sirach**
searchgodsword.org/
scripture4all.org/
Click to expand...
The Strong’s Concordance is a heavily Protestant work that has many errors about Catholic teaching in it and advocates doctrines not in line with the Catholic Church. Just so you know, bigbear62040. And as you certainly know, tabcom. :tsktsk:
 
Lots of people are saying that the KJV is incomplete and missing books, but the KJV includes all of the deuterocannonicals and the apocrypha, although they’re placed at the end of the OT instead of being integrated.

You can keep the KJV but you should recognize its faults.

It comes from less accurate manuscripts than modern translations.
It was translated with an anti-Catholic bias.
Many KJVs, especially if you’re Southern Baptists, are missing the deutero-cannonicals.

If you want a KJV-like Catholic bible, go with the Douay-Rheims.

Personally, I’d suggest getting a more modern Catholic bible, like the Ignatius RSV, for study, and using your KJV for devotional reading.
 
fantrl said:
Lots of people are saying that the KJV is incomplete and missing books, but the KJV includes all of the deuterocannonicals and the apocrypha, although they’re placed at the end of the OT instead of being integrated.
Click to expand...
Many KJV editions don’t have this. He’d have to look for one that does.

There’s also Msgr. Ronald Knox version of the Bible. The OT is pretty standard, except for Psalm 119 (118 in the Knox), which is a brilliant translation. His NT is wonderful–especially his notes.
 
Della said:
The Strong’s Concordance is a heavily Protestant work that has many errors about Catholic teaching in it and advocates doctrines not in line with the Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
**
How is taking an English word and listing everytime it is used in the Bible and giving a brief definition in the the original language a threat to Catholics?
:confused:**
 
Missa_Solemnis said:
If you like the King James Bible…the most similar Catholic Bible would be the Douay-Rheims.

It is also my personal favorite, and has other benefits.
  1. Its translated from the Latin Vulgate.
  2. It often comes with extra encylicals and resources that are really good for Catholics.
  3. It has beautiful language/
  4. Its the Bible the English Catholic world has used the longest.
Click to expand...
Dear Friends,
Having compared, at least, the Gospel translations in the Douay-Rheims, and the KJV, it is impossible to conclude other than that there has been much collusion, or much cross-copying between the translators. It is otherwise absolutely impossible that so much of the English text could be word - for - word, the same. My impression is that the KJV is an attempt at de-wrinkling the grossly Latinistic language of the Douay-Rheims.
I may be biased, but I feel that for the most part, the KJV dialect is an improvement on the Douay-Rheims.
It should also be accepted that neither KJV Gospels, nor those of Douay are error free translations, cf. the two sons in the vinyard. You compare the account with the Latin of Jerome!
 
The New American Bible is the one we use in Catholic Mass. It is easy to get.
 
The Douay-Rheims is online at drbo.org if you would like to check it out before investing in a printed copy.
 
Della said:
The Strong’s Concordance is a heavily Protestant work that has many errors about Catholic teaching in it and advocates doctrines not in line with the Catholic Church. Just so you know, bigbear62040. And as you certainly know, tabcom. :tsktsk:
Click to expand...
Gee-- I thought the Strongs Concordance was a dictionary of the words of the bible. Can you point out some errors about Catholic teaching in it for me? Thanks
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top