King James Version of the Bible

[BernadetteM]

Today I had to take my daugther to a dental clinic which was quite far from where we live.

While sitting there for hours, I had the opportunity to speak to a gentleman sitting next to me. We started talking about our respective churches and he said he belonged to a non denominational church. I started asking him questions regarding what he believed and then proceded to explain to him the Catholic beliefs in Purgatory, the Eucharist and the Saints. I told him to start reading his bible with an open mind. I also mentioned that he might read the Early Chruch Fathers and was they taught, he had never heard of them.

What really made me laugh is when I asked him where the Bible came from and his answer was the first and only true Bible was the King James and that is who wrote it and that is where we got the Bible from.

I had to explain to him that many centuries before the Catholic Church decided on the Canon of the New and Old testament and that was centuries before the King James version.

I knew that many protestants actually believe this, but hearing it was a shock. After our conversation he told me that I had opened his eyes to what we were talking about and I suggested he find a good orthodox priest to explain the Catholic Faith and the history of Christianity.

I hope I planted a seed and that he will actually starts researching the Church and its history.

Who knows when we do speak out and explain why we believe what the Church teaches if another will be led into the Catholic Church. I also gave him examples of some of my protestant friends who deny Purgatory and asking the saints for prayers, who do actually believe in these doctrines, but don’t accept them being defined, but do accept their own personal experiences that conform to Catholic beliefs.

Yours in the Hearts of Jesus and Mary

Bernadette

 

[Izdaari]

Of course you’re correct about the history of the Bible.

I own about two dozen Bibles in a dozen different translations, KJV among them. It’s good for its time, a fine translation into Jacobean English, but not anything super special as translations go, neither more nor less inspired than others.

Do many Protestants believe the KJV was the first Bible? Sure, but only the ignorant ones. Uneducated Catholics who haven’t been properly catechized tend to believe some weird stuff too.

 

[bauerice]

Do many Protestants believe the KJV was the first Bible? Sure, but only the ignorant ones. Uneducated Catholics who haven’t been properly catechized tend to believe some weird stuff too.

I have even heard “If the King James Bible was good enough for Paul. it’s good enough for us now”
It sounds as though you made a connection with someone sincerely open and searching.

 

[Jon_Hus]

What really made me laugh is when I asked him where the Bible came from and his answer was the first and only true Bible was the King James and that is who wrote it and that is where we got the Bible from.

I had to explain to him that many centuries before the Catholic Church decided on the Canon of the New and Old testament and that was centuries before the King James version.

Here is something for the “Strange but True files”, Roman Catholics have there own counterparts to the protestant “King James Only” movement, they are known as “Douay-Rheims Bible Only” Catholics. Probably not as numerous but they do exist.

I have read on several Catholic apologetics websites where Catholics with a stright face proclaim that Catholics translated the Bible into english before the protestants did, thus rewriting history which claims that the masses of english speaking people didn’t have a Bible in the vernacular until the reformers came along. As proof for this claim, they say that The Douay-Rheims Bible (NT) was published in 1582 and the King James in 1611. They theory goes that the catholics had the Bible in english 30 years sooner than the protestants.

In response to the obvious, I have also heard a minority (ie: radical) catholic try to make the claim that Wyclif and Tyndale’s work were comissioned by Rome but it got out of hand.

 

[JRKH]

Of course you’re correct about the history of the Bible.

I own about two dozen Bibles in a dozen different translations, KJV among them. It’s good for its time, a fine translation into Jacobean English, but not anything super special as translations go, neither more nor less inspired than others.

Do many Protestants believe the KJV was the first Bible? Sure, but only the ignorant ones. Uneducated Catholics who haven’t been properly catechized tend to believe some weird stuff too.

As the Cowardly Lion said in the Wizard of Oz…Ain’t it the truth…Ain’t it the truuuth.

Peace
James

 

[Ignatias20]

I am a Roman Catholic and a 4th degree Knight of Columbus who has several Bibles. Maybe it is because I wanted the Oldest English Version of the Bible that about fifteen
years ago I purchased a two-volume Bible - the Old and New Testaments from EWTN.

This was the “Douay-Rhiems Bible”. This Bible was translated from the Latin Vulgate. It was first published in Rheims, France in 1582. Four Priests from England went there to translate in safety.

I have read that the KJV deleted 7 or 8 Books from the Catholic Vulgate. St. Jerome had translated the Bible from Greek and Hebrew before the year 400. Jerome used the language that was most used then around the Western world. That language was Latin.

I read that King James of Britian had about forty men tanslate the Bible into English. Then later his appointed experts and the King eliminated portions of the Bible for their own reasons.

For these reasons we have to say that the KJV is an abridged or incomplete Bible.

 

[Katrina5]

Here is something for the “Strange but True files”, Roman Catholics have there own counterparts to the protestant “King James Only” movement, they are known as “Douay-Rheims Bible Only” Catholics. Probably not as numerous but they do exist.

I have read on several Catholic apologetics websites where Catholics with a stright face proclaim that Catholics translated the Bible into english before the protestants did, thus rewriting history which claims that the masses of english speaking people didn’t have a Bible in the vernacular until the reformers came along. As proof for this claim, they say that The Douay-Rheims Bible (NT) was published in 1582 and the King James in 1611. They theory goes that the catholics had the Bible in english 30 years sooner than the protestants.

In response to the obvious, I have also heard a minority (ie: radical) catholic try to make the claim that Wyclif and Tyndale’s work were comissioned by Rome but it got out of hand.

The Old Testament was translated and published by the English College at Douay in 1609.
The New Testament was translated and published by the English College at Rheims in 1582.

The similarity is Elizabethan English, both were translated from the Latin Vulgate, which had been translated by St Jerome from Greek and Hebrew.
The similarities stop with Luther’s “editing” of the original King James Version to suit his refusal to accept authority.

I know protestants who don’t know why they call themselves “protestant”, think King James is a Biblical figure, or who think it doesn’t matter who he was. Perhaps they are confusing King David and the apostle James?

While they can isolate certain passages to wage a battle against the Catholic Church, they don’t know history of who was burning who at the stake.

They think the early English Bible was like a mass produced paperback when it was translated and “everyone could read it for themselves.”

Sola Scriptura is a justification to break from authority and Tradition.

I was speaking to a Catholic the other day about when “everything was in Latin” and she didn’t recall knowing what any of it meant. I recall learning enough Latin to know what we were saying in the prayers.

The sermons weren’t in Latin, although I know of a former Catholic who claims he was bored to death by the priest preaching in Latin, and he wasn’t even born until after Vatican II.

 

[Katrina5]

I am a Roman Catholic and a 4th degree Knight of Columbus who has several Bibles. Maybe it is because I wanted the Oldest English Version of the Bible that about fifteen
years ago I purchased a two-volume Bible - the Old and New Testaments from EWTN.

This was the “Douay-Rhiems Bible”. This Bible was translated from the Latin Vulgate. It was first published in Rheims, France in 1582. Four Priests from England went there to translate in safety.

I have read that the KJV deleted 7 or 8 Books from the Catholic Vulgate. St. Jerome had translated the Bible from Greek and Hebrew before the year 400. Jerome used the language that was most used then around the Western world. That language was Latin.

I read that King James of Britian had about forty men tanslate the Bible into English. Then later his appointed experts and the King eliminated portions of the Bible for their own reasons.

For these reasons we have to say that the KJV is an abridged or incomplete Bible.

I would like to add that Latin is a “dead language” but the good thing about that is it hasn’t morphed over the centuries as other languages have. Scholars would then want to go back to the Hebrew and Greek.
Aside from that, the decisions on what to include (canonization) were done in the third century. Luther removed the Septuagint, although it had been removed previously by the Jews in 70 AD.

 

[Soldier_X]

I have even heard “If the King James Bible was good enough for Paul. it’s good enough for us now”
It sounds as though you made a connection with someone sincerely open and searching.

All you have to do is look at the cover of a Bible to determine whether or not it’s the real KJV as used by the Apostles. After all, “If the king ain’t on it, the King ain’t in it!”

 

[Izdaari]

I have even heard “If the King James Bible was good enough for Paul. it’s good enough for us now”
It sounds as though you made a connection with someone sincerely open and searching.

Funny thing is, if some time traveler had given Paul a King James Bible, he wouldn’t have been able to read it, at least not without exercising the gift of tongues (and I don’t know if that’s ever manifested in a written version).

 

[Nicea325]

Here is something for the “Strange but True files”, Roman Catholics have there own counterparts to the protestant “King James Only” movement, they are known as “Douay-Rheims Bible Only” Catholics. Probably not as numerous but they do exist.

I have read on several Catholic apologetics websites where Catholics with a stright face proclaim that Catholics translated the Bible into english before the protestants did, thus rewriting history which claims that the masses of english speaking people didn’t have a Bible in the vernacular until the reformers came along. As proof for this claim, they say that The Douay-Rheims Bible (NT) was published in 1582 and the King James in 1611. They theory goes that the catholics had the Bible in english 30 years sooner than the protestants.

In response to the obvious, I have also heard a minority (ie: radical) catholic try to make the claim that Wyclif and Tyndale’s work were comissioned by Rome but it got out of hand.

Come again? Those Catholic apologetics re-wrote history? On the contrary,it is the other way around.The Catholic Church already had translated the Bible into other vernacular languages long before ANY Protestant owned a Bible. You need to study the history of the Bible.

 

[Jon_Hus]

Allow me to help:

I am a Roman Catholic and a 4th degree Knight of Columbus who has several Bibles. Maybe it is because I wanted the Oldest English Version of the Bible that about fifteen
years ago I purchased a two-volume Bible - the Old and New Testaments from EWTN.

This was the “Douay-Rhiems Bible”. This Bible was translated from the Latin Vulgate. It was first published in Rheims, France in 1582. Four Priests from England went there to translate in safety.

Two things:

1. The Vulgate was 1000 years old when the Douay-Rhiems finally appeared. In those 1000 years it (the Vulgate) and the (Latin) language had been revised quite a bit. In other words, the foundation for the D/R wasn’t the same as the version Jerome produced. Jerome was not perfect and his Vulgate contained translation errors that were carried over to the DR translation.
2. The Douay-Rhiems itself has also been revised since 1582. Most Douay-Rhiems Bibles offered today are actually the Bishop Richard Challoner revision of around 1750. Most likely the DR Bible you have is this revision.

I have read that the KJV deleted 7 or 8 Books from the Catholic Vulgate. St. Jerome had translated the Bible from Greek and Hebrew before the year 400. Jerome used the language that was most used then around the Western world. That language was Latin.

Actually, when the King James was first published in 1611 it included the extra books. Likewise, it’s predicessor translations the Matthews, Bishops, Geneva and so forth. Like the DR, the King James has been revised over the years, however the KJV has been revised over 100 times. Most King James Bibles offered today are the Blayney (Qxford) or the Cambridge editions from around 1769. Of course today the KJV doesnt have the extra books and that is a topic for another discussion.

I read that King James of Britian had about forty men tanslate the Bible into English. Then later his appointed experts and the King eliminated portions of the Bible for their own reasons.

The actual number of translators that worked on the KJV was 47.

For these reasons we have to say that the KJV is an abridged or incomplete Bible.

This is a matter of opinion. In the two years or so that I have been reading posts on this forum I have not once seen anything appraoching a fair and accurate discussion on this rather complicated topic.

 

[Jon_Hus]

The similarity is Elizabethan English, both were translated from the Latin Vulgate, which had been translated by St Jerome from Greek and Hebrew.
The similarities stop with Luther’s “editing” of the original King James Version to suit his refusal to accept authority.

By the time the King James version was produced, Luther (who translated the Bible into German and probably didn’t know much English) was dead for about 60 years.

I know protestants who don’t know why they call themselves “protestant”, think King James is a Biblical figure, or who think it doesn’t matter who he was. Perhaps they are confusing King David and the apostle James?

I don’t think you really know anyone who thinks this.

While they can isolate certain passages to wage a battle against the Catholic Church, they don’t know history of who was burning who at the stake.

You apparently are not in a position to determine who does or does not know history. Sorry if that offends.

They think the early English Bible was like a mass produced paperback when it was translated and “everyone could read it for themselves.”

Again, I seriously doubt that this is true.

 

[Katrina5]

By the time the King James version was produced, Luther (who translated the Bible into German and probably didn’t know much English) was dead for about 60 years.

I don’t think you really know anyone who thinks this.

You apparently are not in a position to determine who does or does not know history. Sorry if that offends.

Again, I seriously doubt that this is true.

You are doubting everything I said. I do know someone who thinks King James is IN the Bible. She also thinks Joan of Arc is in the Bible.
Most “protestants” that I am around DO NOT know where that word came from, they just know they are.

Yes, I do know history, and I know plenty of people who don’t.

You seem pompous, and will most likely disagree with anything I post, so I will not engage in a useless argument with you.
From your last sentence, it appears you want to argue in a bully ring where you will always win.
I took debate in college and we were taught not to question the motives of the other side.
However,I question your motives for being on this forum.

 

[Jon_Hus]

Come again? Those Catholic apologetics re-wrote history? On the contrary,it is the other way around.The Catholic Church already had translated the Bible into other vernacular languages long before ANY Protestant owned a Bible. You need to study the history of the Bible.

In a very narrow technical sense you have a point. However, in practical reality this is not really true. If, lets say that there were Bible verses embossed under an icon hanging in a church that was in the vernacular, then you would be correct. But no one would in any academic setting try to make the claim that the Catholic church put the Bible into the venacular and or made it available to the masses before the reformation. And to be technically correct, Luther wasn’t the first to translate the Bible into German. Luther was the first to have sucess in gettng his translation to the public.

John Wyclif translated the NT into Middle English using the Vulgate in 1388, 60 years before the printing press. He was the first to translate the complete NT into english. Eleven years after his death, the pope had his bones dug up and burned, why, we do not know. William Tyndale translated the Bible into English from the Hebrew and Greek in 1526. The pope was able to get him attached to a stake before he died of natural causes.

As you probably know, the printing press wasn’t invented until the early 1400s I have seen on catholic apologetic web site were they say the Gutenberg Bible 1450 was the first and thus beat the protestants to the punch. Of course, the Gutenberg Bible was the first Bible to be printed on a press but it was, as I’m sure you know a copy of the Vulgate.

Anyway, I’m not insulted by your comments about me not knowing my history. All is good with me.

 

[Jon_Hus]

You are doubting everything I said. I do know someone who thinks King James is IN the Bible. She also thinks Joan of Arc is in the Bible.
Most “protestants” that I am around DO NOT know where that word came from, they just know they are.

Yes, I do know history, and I know plenty of people who don’t.

You seem pompous, and will most likely disagree with anything I post, so I will not engage in a useless argument with you.
From your last sentence, it appears you want to argue in a bully ring where you will always win.
I took debate in college and we were taught not to question the motives of the other side.
However,I question your motives for being on this forum.

Whatever you say.

 

[Izdaari]

Actually, when the King James was first published in 1611 it included the extra books. Likewise, it’s predicessor translations the Matthews, Bishops, Geneva and so forth. Like the DR, the King James has been revised over the years, however the KJV has been revised over 100 times. Most King James Bibles offered today are the Blayney (Qxford) or the Cambridge editions from around 1769. Of course today the KJV doesnt have the extra books and that is a topic for another discussion.

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.

 

[Tyuiop411]

In a very narrow technical sense you have a point. However, in practical reality this is not really true. If, lets say that there were Bible verses embossed under an icon hanging in a church that was in the vernacular, then you would be correct. But no one would in any academic setting try to make the claim that the Catholic church put the Bible into the venacular and or made it available to the masses before the reformation. And to be technically correct, Luther wasn’t the first to translate the Bible into German. Luther was the first to have sucess in gettng his translation to the public.

John Wyclif translated the NT into Middle English using the Vulgate in 1388, 60 years before the printing press. He was the first to translate the complete NT into english. Eleven years after his death, the pope had his bones dug up and burned, why, we do not know. William Tyndale translated the Bible into English from the Hebrew and Greek in 1526. The pope was able to get him attached to a stake before he died of natural causes.

As you probably know, the printing press wasn’t invented until the early 1400s I have seen on catholic apologetic web site were they say the Gutenberg Bible 1450 was the first and thus beat the protestants to the punch. Of course, the Gutenberg Bible was the first Bible to be printed on a press but it was, as I’m sure you know a copy of the Vulgate.

Anyway, I’m not insulted by your comments about me not knowing my history. All is good with me.

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.

 

[Izdaari]

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.

Yes, that’s the origin of the term. Vulgate was Roman street Latin, which evolved into Italian, and continued unchanged in the Church. But after the Roman Empire was over, I can’t think of any place where the common people spoke Latin, much less read it. The educated learned Latin and Greek, but the common people didn’t.

 

[Zooey]

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

Yes, that’s the origin of the term. Vulgate was Roman street Latin, which evolved into Italian, and continued unchanged in the Church. But after the Roman Empire was over, I can’t think of any place where the common people spoke Latin, much less read it. The educated learned Latin and Greek, but the common people didn’t.

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.