King James Only?

  • Thread starter Thread starter yogosans14
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I looked this up on a site with a lot of search and comparison capability: there is a word which Occurs in many places which the Protestants translate as repent and which the DR translates as Do penance.

Obviously the latter is more accurate than the former. It is for this reason alone that I use Catholic bibles for my own reading. I just don’t know what else may be translated in a nuanced way like that.

As for versions, I want to more thoroughly check it out, but the recently released Knox bible (which can be found online at New Advent) seems to have the best balance between beauty and readability. JMHO 🙂
 
po18guy said:
KJV only-ists are a very odd group, indeed. However, a King James Version which includes the Deuterocanonical books is not a bad bible. I find it very easy to demonstrate Catholic doctrine from the KJV - easier in fact, than to demonstrate it from the official Catholic bible. How strange is that? I see both the NAB and NAB/RE as very weak translations. The GNT? Forget about it. Horrible, if only because of John 2:4.

My personal favorite is the little known Confrater nity bible, produced in variuous forms from 1941-1969. Most have the douay-Rheims version of the Old Testament combined with a 20th century theological English translation of the New Testament. From the language difference, you immediately know which testament you are in. You can find them in thrift stores or on eBay for about $10. A great bargain.
Click to expand...
Or, on my shelf.

GKC
 
po18guy said:
How is this possible, since the D-R predates the KJV? :confused:

Your KJV quote sounds rather like the 1769 revision, does it not? How can the English channel account for such a vast difference in linguistics between contemporary Englishmen? :confused:
Click to expand...
All 1611 KJs currently available are basically the 1769 edition, IIRC.

GKC
 
CMSUVulcan said:
Yes, Douay Rheims is equally as poetic as the KJV, and as its a Catholic version with a complete canon of 73 books, its much better in some ways. That being said, and its probably a result of my upbringing the Assembly of God and Southern Baptist denominations before I entered full communion with the Church at Easter 2010, I find Douay and KJV somewhat difficult to read at times because the language found in both is very archaic. As such, for study purposes I much prefer the Navarre Bible and Commentaries, the RSV Catholic Edition and even the NKJV. Don’t get me wrong, I think the KJV and the Douay are triumphs in literature and love how the psalms are translated in each. However, for study, devotional readings (for Lent, I tried and mainly succeeded in reading through the Gospel according to St. John) I prefer more modern translations such as the RSV, Jerusalem Bible, Navarre, and even the NKJV.

That being said, I should say that pretty much any bible, except perhaps the Message Bible and the one used by The Watch Tower Society (Jehova’s Witnesses) is useful for spiritual nourishment. I even knew a sister once who stated that she often liked the NIV because she found it the easiest to read. I don’t personally care for the NIV but as long as you are submitted to Rome and adhere to the Teaching and Magisterium of the Church it does not so much matter what Bible you read. IMHO, at a minimum it should have all 73 books and not the abridged 66 books that most protestant versions have, and should not be a blatant work of heresy.
Click to expand...
True, I love the NIV its a very balanced word for word and thought for thought. I dont own a Catholic Bible but I was thinking of buying either the NABRE or the RSV CE
 
po18guy said:
Stop it! Stop using a mobile device!!!
Click to expand...
:rotfl:

…

I remember teasing one of my friends who really loved the KJV by saying “The King James Bible is perfect because it’s the Bible Jesus used!”

Drinking was involved, and many retorts were given.
 
codefro said:
Approved translations in the US, I believe are
Click to expand...
For Mass in a Latin Church, I’m pretty sure only the NAB with Revised Psalms and Revised New Testament (with some modifications by the Holy See) has current approval in the U.S.

I seem to recall the CEV having approval for children’s Masses, but I don’t know whether that info is current.

Of course, there are plenty of great Catholic Bibles other than the NAB, and the NAB’s not usually my first pick for personal reading. But for use at Mass, I’m pretty sure it’s the only current option.
 
aspirant said:
For Mass in a Latin Church, I’m pretty sure only the NAB with Revised Psalms and Revised New Testament (with some modifications by the Holy See) has current approval in the U.S.

I seem to recall the CEV having approval for children’s Masses, but I don’t know whether that info is current.

Of course, there are plenty of great Catholic Bibles other than the NAB, and the NAB’s not usually my first pick for personal reading. But for use at Mass, I’m pretty sure it’s the only current option.
Click to expand...
“Approval” simply means those versions approved for use by clergy in the liturgy. No Catholic bible has ever lost its imprimatur or nihil obstat, or has becme “de-approved” for personal enrichment.

In fact, the Douay-Rheims remains the liturgical bible of the extrardinary form (Latin mass).
 
po18guy said:
“Approval” simply means those versions approved for use by clergy in the liturgy.
Click to expand...
By anyone in the liturgy. Doesn’t matter whether the reader is ordained. Right now it’s just one translation for Roman liturgies in the U.S.
 
aspirant said:
By anyone in the liturgy. Doesn’t matter whether the reader is ordained. Right now it’s just one translation for Roman liturgies in the U.S.
Click to expand...
We are splitting hairs. Take the word “clergy” out of my post, please. For the sake of some level of uniformity in the liturgy, “approval” means that it should be the scripture we hear read during the mass, no matter who reads it. OK so far?
 
po18guy said:
In fact, the Douay-Rheims remains the liturgical bible of the extrardinary form (Latin mass).
Click to expand...
I’m fairly sure the Bible used in the liturgy is the Latin Vulgate. If they used an English Bible in the EF I would probably attend more often. I can get the liturgy, but going to church without being edified by God’s word is not my thing.
 
Indifferently said:
I’m fairly sure the Bible used in the liturgy is the Latin Vulgate. If they used an English Bible in the EF I would probably attend more often. I can get the liturgy, but going to church without being edified by God’s word is not my thing.
Click to expand...
My bad there! We are enriched by the word of God, but the mass is not primarily for enrichment. It is the Church’s greatest prayer, which of course, also enriches. The Church teaches that God is due, in order: adoration, praise, thanksgiving, propitiation for our sins, and finally, petition. The mass is also ordered to this end. However, we may choose the form of mass (Latin of vernacular) which most speaks to our spirits. And, some spirits definitely respond to Latin.
 
po18guy said:
The Church teaches that God is due, in order: adoration, praise, thanksgiving, propitiation for our sins, and finally, petition.
Click to expand...
I am fairly sure that even the Roman Catholic Church does not teach that we are able to make propitiation for our sins. That was Jesus’s job on the Cross (1 John 2:1-2).
 
Indifferently said:
I am fairly sure that even the Roman Catholic Church does not teach that we are able to make propitiation for our sins. That was Jesus’s job on the Cross (1 John 2:1-2).
Click to expand...
You are protestant and that is a very protestant idea. We are parts of Christ’s Body - if you believe Paul. If we cannot offer propitiation with Christ, to the Father while being parts of His Son;s Body, then why do we belong to that Body? What use penance, then? You are not a Calvinist. correct?
 
I think the Mostly Anglican Bishops and scholars that translated it as well as the calvanist scholars (who were in the minority in translation as I understand) would be roling in their grave over King James Onlyism.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top