King James Version of the Bible

[Jon_Hus]

Wasn’t the Vulgate called the Vulgate because it was in the language of the “Vulgar” (common) people. I will concede that the Vulgate wasn’t in the hands of your average layman, but that was because of the fact that each Bible had to be hand copied.

This is my understanding also. Even during the reformation, the churchmen of Rome referred to the vernacular as the vulgar language regardless of what vernacular language was in use at the time/place.

Yes, it is of course true that the Bible (or any other written work) had to be hand copied. The invention of moveable type (early 15th century) and the ability to produce numerous copies of books at a reasonable cost was one of several reasons why Luther was sucessful in bringing on the reformation when other reformers previous to him had failed. Still, thoughtful students of history would ask themselves why the average layman in the middle ages in Europe had no real exposure to the Bible or other great works of literature while their counterparts in other more anchient cultures or in other parts of the world during that time did have exposure to literature. Again, a discussion for another time but still a good question to ponder.

One of the reasons why men entered the church and became priests in the middle ages was to learn, to get an education. The rich were able to afford to educate their kids but those in the peasant class were unable. Classical learning in the west involved Latin. When the eastern part of the empire fell to the moores, the clergy fled to the west bringing with them many of the libraries including the greek and hebrew Bible. The greek NT was edited and published in 1516 which was the year before Luther nailed his 95 thesis to the castle door. Luther and some of the other early reformers learned greek and began to see some of the shortcomings of the Latin Scriptures. The rest is as they say, history.

 

[SalesianSDB]

(Of course, I always want a new Bible, even when:blush: I haven’t finished reading through the last new one that I bought…)

Same here. I just ordered a NKJV New Testament study Bible with the notes written by my favorite Protestant pastor, Greg Laurie. I love getting new Bibles! I don’t even know how many different translations I already have.

 

[PaulDupre]

Btw, the KJV is still available in editions that have them. Cambridge is coming out with a new one, in a modern typesetting, paragraphed and single-column, personal size, in premium calfskin. It’s on my acquisition list. True of course that the vast majority of current KJVs don’t have them.

I would be very interested in owning that one, too. I own and use a number of different translations and editions, including the KJV (my old LDS Missionary Edition). One of the things I never liked about the KJV is that it is “versed” rather than “paragraphed” as most modern translations are. It has been my experience that people who rely on versed bibles tend to pull verses out of context far more than those who rely on paragraphed bibles.

Being an archaeology and history buff, one of my favorite bibles is The Archaeology Study Bible. Every few pages it has information on discoveries or historical and cultural things related to the surrounding text. It is easy to get lost for hours in that bible.

And it comes with a very nice DVD.

Paul

 

[Jon_Hus]

… One of the things I never liked about the KJV is that it is “versed” rather than “paragraphed” as most modern translations are. It has been my experience that people who rely on versed bibles tend to pull verses out of context far more than those who rely on paragraphed bibles.

Paul

In the NKJV, the first verse in a paragraph has the verse number in bold type. I don’t know if you knew that.

I have the reprint of the 1611 King James published by Hendrickson. It is of course very fun to read. The Hendrickson version is the exact same spelling as the 1611 however they typeface is Roman, not Gothic. The Roman was from a 1611 reprint done in the 1800s. Still, It’s a neat little Bible and well worth the cost. I have the Hendrickson 1560 Genevia which is a true repro. Another really fun Bible and the notes are interesting also.

The Bible that is my favorite though is the Tyndale NT from 1526 in the orig spelling. It is actually easier to read than the KJV or Genevia. All of them take some getting used to.

 

[Ignatias20]

Jon Huss is a poater who has taken the name of a precursor of church reformers including Martin Luther. The poster Jon huss posted that the Douay-Rhiems Bible was first produced in 1582.

I have a Douay-Rhiems Bible and in it 1581 is the date of the first printing. Four English Catholic priests translated this bible from Jerome’s Vulgate. They had to do this in France because of the terrible attacks on Catholic priests by the English Crown. Jerome had spent almost ten years translating the Vulgate from the original Greek and Hebrew before the year 400.

It was later that King James sent his group of men to make a translation. James’ men were for the most part nonreligious, they were just learned men - not priests. Further, King James deleted about 8 books from the Catholic Vulgate. Yes, there were two partial translations prior to the Douay-Rhiems Version. But they were partial translations, not a complete Bible.

Who was Jon Hus? The man Jon Huss was one of the pre-Luther “reformers”.
He was condemed by the Catholic Church. This man was not a friend of Rome.

 

[Eutychus123]

Jon Huss is a poater who has taken the name of a precursor of church reformers including Martin Luther. The poster Jon huss posted that the Douay-Rhiems Bible was first produced in 1582.

I have a Douay-Rhiems Bible and in it 1581 is the date of the first printing. Four English Catholic priests translated this bible from Jerome’s Vulgate. They had to do this in France because of the terrible attacks on Catholic priests by the English Crown. Jerome had spent almost ten years translating the Vulgate from the original Greek and Hebrew before the year 400.

It was later that King James sent his group of men to make a translation. James’ men were for the most part nonreligious, they were just learned men - not priests. Further, King James deleted about 8 books from the Catholic Vulgate. Yes, there were two partial translations prior to the Douay-Rhiems Version. But they were partial translations, not a complete Bible.

Who was Jon Hus? The man Jon Huss was one of the pre-Luther “reformers”.
He was condemed by the Catholic Church. This man was not a friend of Rome.

Are you referring to Wycliffe and Tyndale?

 

[The_Old_Medic]

You would be amazed at the number of so called “Christians” that do not understand that the Old Testament is essentially the Jewish Bible.

Many Catholics do not know that we have several books in our Old Testament, that do not appear in most Protestant Bibles.

 

[hizstory]

A book I would recommend reading on this topic is “Where We Got the Bible: Our Debt to the Catholic Church” by Rev. Henry Graham. It goes into detail about the various English translations prior to the King James Version and why their proponents (i.e. Tyndale and Wycliffe) were ostracized by the Church. Growing up an Evangelical Fundamentalist, I was under the impression that the KJV was the original English version and therefore far superior than any other. Of course now that I have educated myself on the subject, I see how silly my past views were.

 

[SyCarl]

It was later that King James sent his group of men to make a translation. James’ men were for the most part nonreligious, they were just learned men - not priests. Further, King James deleted about 8 books from the Catholic Vulgate. Yes, there were two partial translations prior to the Douay-Rhiems Version. But they were partial translations, not a complete Bible.

Actually the 1611 King James bible contained more books than the Catholic bible as it contained 1 Esdras, 2 Esdras and the Prayer of Manasseh in with the Apocrypha (Deuterocanonical books
).

Also there were a number of complete English translations before the Douay-Rheims.

1. 1384 The Wycliffe translation
2. 1535 Myles Coverdale’s Bible
3. 1537 Tyndale-Matthews Bible
4. 1539 The "Great Bible
5. 1560 The Geneva Bible
6. 1568 The Bishops Bible

All of these contained the same books as the King James version.

 

[loneviking]

Jon Hus wrote:

When the eastern part of the empire fell to the moores, the clergy fled to the west bringing with them many of the libraries including the greek and hebrew Bible. The greek NT was edited and published in 1516 which was the year before Luther nailed his 95 thesis to the castle door. Luther and some of the other early reformers learned greek and began to see some of the shortcomings of the Latin Scriptures. The rest is as they say, history

.

Correct. These scriptures were the basis for the KJV translation. They had been preserved for centuries by the church in the east and agreed with the early Patristic writings much better than the Vulgate. And so, the KJV stood as the best, English translation for about 400 years. These manuscripts formed the basis for other translations during those years, including the Reina-Valera Bible in Spanish.

And then, in the mid 1800’s, two codexes were discovered: the Vaticanus and the Sinaiaticus, which two theologians named Westcott and Hort cobbled together into a new translation. Their work became the basis for all the new translations that followed and are notable for all the many things that they leave out that were in the KJV Bible. Many of the passages left out or relegated to a side note are attested to by Patristic writings, such as the Johannine comma and the story of the woman caught in the act of adultery, along with the long ending of the gospel of Mark.

About three weeks ago, my pastor gave a sermon on the The Lords Prayer as it’s found in Luke, chap. 11 and how Luke left out some things that Matthews version had. My pastor was using the NIV to show and discuss these differences. I caught up to him afterwards and said ‘Gee Pastor, my KJV has all of those things that you say were left out. Maybe it’s time to change the translation you use!’.

This KJV issue is probably not a very big deal among Catholics. But it is among Protestants.

 

[Izdaari]

Ireland.
In Ireland, right up into the 19th C, Latin was so commonly known (&** :thumbsup:spoken**, yet!), that when they had what we would call a “farmer’s market”, and all the folks were buying & sellig their wares, the English-speaking and the Gaelic-speaking Irish haggled over the price of eggs, cabbage,flour, piglets, and wooly socks in Latin.
It was the “vulgar” language of the farmers, millers, and weavers.
I expect the same was true in more than just there. It’s just that, having Irish ancestors, I have heard about these things all my life.

Very interesting! I didn’t know that.

 

[Izdaari]

I would be very interested in owning that one, too. I own and use a number of different translations and editions, including the KJV (my old LDS Missionary Edition). One of the things I never liked about the KJV is that it is “versed” rather than “paragraphed” as most modern translations are. It has been my experience that people who rely on versed bibles tend to pull verses out of context far more than those who rely on paragraphed bibles.

Being an archaeology and history buff, one of my favorite bibles is The Archaeology Study Bible. Every few pages it has information on discoveries or historical and cultural things related to the surrounding text. It is easy to get lost for hours in that bible.

And it comes with a very nice DVD.

Paul

You can find that one on EvangelicalBibles.com under Cambridge, KJV. It isn’t out quite yet, but it’s available for pre-order. I agree that “versed” Bibles encourage the bad habit of quoting Scripture out of context.

I also have The Archaeological Study Bible. It’s one of my favorites. It was only in NIV, but now a KJV version has just come out.

 

[Eric_Faith]

Hi there, and May Our Eternal, through His Son, and by the Holy Spirit, bless all who might read this meager offering of mine to the masterminds of Apologetics here @ Catholic Answers and we should always thank God for it. I have an interesting little doozy of a question that I have not actually heard any theologians ever mention (that I know of) in any book or tape series. Simply put: God reveals (in the Catholic canon of 73 books of the Bible) the names of three angelic persons who the Catholic Christians refer to as Saint Michael (often thought to be the ‘angel of the Lord’ that led Moses and the ancient Hebrews through their sojourn in the desert), Saint Gabriel (who appears in both the Old and New Testaments) , and Saint Raphael, who appears in the incredibly fascinating story in the Book of Tobit, being one of the books that Protestant ‘reformers’ rejected for whatever reason they had. In my point of view, 73 sounds so much more like the kind of perfection that Our Lord strives for, rather than 66 (in regard to the number of books in the Bible). But, Why is the very archangel whose name means ‘healing of God,’ rejected, leaving only the mention of 2 archangels rather than 3? 3 is a number more associated with God. As for the numbers, how about a new concept that I could only call the remedy for the poison of numerology, numero+christology. 2 isn’t necessarily bad as a number as it would then remind us Catholic Christians to pray for our brethren that seperated by beliefs, but so much more the same in His essence and Spirit. Thank you for any kindly feedback and as what you type is a kind of letter of loving kindness to all who might read it, might you be blessed in an astonishing way this very good day!