king james version

[mablka]

I am pretty new to the catholic church. I have been wanting to get the Bible on cd. I was at sams club and seen a great deal for the Bible on cd for $16.00 only after I got home I realized it was the King James version. Is that a problem? What is the difference between the KJV and the New American Standard? Thanks Mablka

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

The King James Version, does not have all of the books of the Old Testament. It followed the Hebrew Canon from the Council of Jamnia, in ±90AD, which determined the books of the Hebrew Scriptures, by a group of Rabbis. The only problem is that the New Testament was already started and the Jews were no longer under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

The Catholics use the books as determined by the Greek Canon. This was from the Council of Alexandria when the books of the Hebrew Scriptures were determined by what is called the Septuagint, meaning the 70 (a group of 6 Rabbis from each of the twelve tribes, total 72 Rabbis. This took place in 250-125 BC. in the Council of Hippo and Council of Carthage, the Catholic Church accepted the books of the Greek Canon. The books which were rejected by the Council of Jamnia were those Old Testament books written in Greek. It is interesting to note that all the Books of the New Testament were written in Greek, but these are the ones rejected after the Protestant reformation, after 1500 years of Catholic History. Remember, we had the promise from Jesus that the Holy Spirit would be with us and guide us. The Protestants during the reformation, had no such promise.
Deacon Ed B

 

[bpbasilphx]

The King James Version, does not have all of the books of the Old Testament. It followed the Hebrew Canon from the Council of Jamnia,

**You are mistaken, Fr. Deacon Edward.

The COMPLE KJV does have the Apocrypha/Deuterocanonicals. In fact, it is illegal in the UK to print one without them. I admit, however, it’s tricky to find a complete KJV in this country.

I will not hhave a mutilated KJV in my house.**

 

[sheila0405]

I am pretty new to the catholic church. I have been wanting to get the Bible on cd. I was at sams club and seen a great deal for the Bible on cd for $16.00 only after I got home I realized it was the King James version. Is that a problem? What is the difference between the KJV and the New American Standard? Thanks Mablka

The official Bible in the Mass is the New American Bible. The Revised Standard Version with the deutero-canonical books is also a good translation. Make sure you don’t get a “gutted” Bible–one with only 66 books.

 

[bkovacs]

The official Bible in the Mass is the New American Bible. The Revised Standard Version with the deutero-canonical books is also a good translation. Make sure you don’t get a “gutted” Bible–one with only 66 books.

The NAB is a very bad translation, shows you how messed up the UCCB in this country is. The RSVCE should have been chosen. But the UCCB has to give in to those liberals who pretty much run the church in the US. The NAB wasn’t bad back in the early seventies when it was still non-inclusive. But now I would take a KJV over the NAB any day of the week.

 

[Rolltide]

A couple of things.

1. Here is a list from the Frequent Questions section of the EWTN website that provides all of the currently approved Catholic translations of the Bible:

ewtn.com/expert/expertfaqframe.asp?source=/vexperts/conference.htm
**
Bible Versions and Commentaries

Liturgical Use in United States
**
There is only one English text currently approved by the Church for use in the United States. This text is the one contained in the Lectionaries approved for Sundays & Feasts and for Weekdays by the USCCB and recognized by the Holy See. These Lectionaries have their American and Roman approval documents in the front. The text is that of the New American Bible with revised Psalms and New Testament (1988, 1991), with some changes mandated by the Holy See where the NAB text used so-called vertical inclusive language (e.g. avoiding male pronouns for God). Since these Lectionaries have been fully promulgated, the permission to use the Jerusalem Bible and the RSV-Catholic at Mass has been withdrawn. [See note on inclusive language]

Devotional Reading

A bewildering array of Catholic Bibles are available for personal use. They all have imprimaturs, but not all avoid the use of inclusive language. That use is indicated in the summary. The order is generally chronological.

1. Douai-Rheims. The original Catholic Bible in English, pre-dating the King James Version (1611). It was translated from the Latin Vulgate, the Church’s official Scripture text, by English Catholics in exile on the continent. The NT was completed and published in 1582 when the English College (the seminary for English Catholics) was located at Rheims. The Old Testament was published in 1610 when the College was located at Douai. Bishop Challoner’s 1750 edition, and subsequent revisions by others up to the 20th century, is the most common edition. Retains some archaic English. The 1899 edition is available from TAN Books. The text is widely available on line, including EWTN’s library.

2. Confraternity Edition. Begun in 1936 by the American bishops’ Confraternity for Christian Doctrine as a translation from the Clementine Vulgate. The publication of Pius XII’s encyclical Divino afflante spiritu (1943) caused the translation committee to switch to the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek texts. Not all books were completed by the time of Vatican II (1962-1965). Those that were finished were used in the liturgy in the 1950s and 60s. Published in a dignified American idiom. Though hard to find, this edition of the Scriptures is worth possessing.
**
3. Revised Standard Version (RSV) - Catholic Edition.** Translated for an American audience from the original languages in the 1940s and 1950s by the National Council of the Churches of Christ, and adapted for Catholic use by the Catholic Biblical Association (1966). Considered the best combination of literal (formal equivalence translation) and literary by many orthodox Catholic scholars. Published today by Ignatius Press (Ignatius Bible) and Scepter Press, and available through EWTN’s Religious Catalogue.
**
4.1 New American Bible or NAB (1970).** Translated from the original languages by the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine according to the principles of Vatican II for use in the liturgy. It was the basis of the American Lectionary from the 1970s until 2002. A good translation, but it was criticized for its changing of some traditional and familiar expressions, such as “full of grace”.
**
4.2 NAB with Revised New Testament (1986).** A restoration of some traditional familiar phraseology. Unfortunately, it also included some mild inclusive language. No longer widely available, owing to the publication of the revised Psalms (see next entry).
**
4.3 NAB with Revised Psalms and Revised New Testament (1991).** It was due to the use of vertical inclusive language (re: God and Christ) and some uses of horizontal inclusive language (re: human beings), that the Holy See rejected this text as the basis of a revised Lectionary for the United States. This is the version of the NAB currently on sale in the United States.

4.4 Modified NAB with Revised Psalms and Revised New Testament (2000-2002). This title is of my own invention. It does not refer to any currently available Bible, but to the NAB with Revised Psalms and Revised NT, as modified by a committee of the Holy See and the Bishops for use in the liturgy. It is the text found in all current Lectionaries in the U.S… The Holy See accepted some use of inclusive language, where the speaker/author intended a mixed audience (e.g. “brothers and sisters”, instead of the older “brethren”), but rejected it in references to God or Christ, and man, where the word has anthropological and theological significance (e.g. Psalm 1:1, with reference to Adam and Christ). Whether a Bible will be made available having these modified NAB texts is not known at this time. Since they do not extend to the entire Bible, it is possible that none will be, as that would require further editing of the underlying NAB text.
**
5. Jerusalem Bible (1966).** A translation based on the French edition of the Dominicans of the Ecole Biblique in Jerusalem, who translated it from the original languages. This Bible is the one used by Mother Angelica on the air. The full version has copious footnotes but is hard to find, as it has not been recently republished. A Reader’s Edition, without the full footnoting, is available through EWTN’s Religious Catalogue.

 

[Rolltide]

continued…

6. New Revised Standard Version - Catholic Edition (1989). An adaptation for Catholic use of the NRSV of the National Council of the Churches of Christ. Although used in the American edition of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, it was rejected for liturgical use by the Holy See owing to inclusive language in some unacceptable places. With this exception, like the predecessor RSV, it is a good formal equivalent translation (i.e. literal, but literary).
**
7. New Jerusalem Bible (1990).** A revision of the Jerusalem Bible directly from the original languages. It contains inclusive language, similar to that rejected in the revised NAB by the Holy See for use in the liturgy, but is considered a very literary text, and comparable in quality to the NRSV in scholarship.
**
8. Today’s’ English Version - Catholic (1992).** This is the Catholic edition of the popular Good News Bible by the American Bible Society. Translated according to the principle of dynamic equivalence for readability. The same principle was used by ICEL to translate the Mass texts. Would be better to call a paraphrase than a translation.
**
Catholic versus Protestant Bibles**

Bible translations developed for Catholic use are complete Bibles. This means that they contain the entire canonical text identified by Pope Damasus and the Synod of Rome (382) and the local Councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397), contained in St. Jerome’s Latin Vulgate translation (420), and decreed infallibly by the Ecumenical Council of Trent (1570). This canonical text contains the same 27 NT Testament books which Protestant versions contain, but 46 Old Testament books, instead of 39. These 7 books, and parts of 2 others, are called Deuterocanonical by Catholics (2nd canon) and Apocrypha (false writings) by Protestants, who dropped them at the time of the Reformation. The Deuterocanonical texts are Tobias (Tobit), Judith, Baruch, Ecclesiasticus (Sirach), Wisdom, First and Second Maccabees and parts of Esther and Daniel. Some Protestant Bibles include the “Apocrypha” as pious reading.

Commentaries

While an older orthodox commentary from the 1950s, called A Catholic Commentary on Sacred Scripture (Nelson Publishers) can sometimes be found, we are now starting to see new faithful commentaries being published. The best one is the Navarre Bible (Scepter Press). It is a work in progress from the University of Navarre in Spain. It has both the RSV and the Latin Vulgate, with commentary underneath from the Fathers, Doctors, the Magisterium and the writings of St. Josemaria Escriva, the founder of Opus Dei. So far the volumes of the New Testament (one per Gospel and collections of the epistles) are available, as well as some Old Testament volumes (Pentateuch, Joshua-Kings). Additionally, Ignatius Press has begun to publish the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible, individual NT volumes by orthodox scholars, including Scott Hahn. Sop, far the Gospels and Acts have been published. Both the Navarre Bible and the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible can be obtained from EWTN’s Religious Catalogue, the publishers, and through most Catholic catalogs, distributors and bookstores.

The most widely used Catholic commentary is probably the Jerome Biblical Commentary, now in a 2nd edition. There is also a summary version of it. This commentary is the work of well-known Catholic Biblical scholars and is filled with articles on historical, archaeological, linguistic and other subjects useful for understanding the background of the Scriptures. The JBC is, therefore, a valuable resource for those seeking such information. However, the textual commentaries use primarily the historical-critical method, and thus must be read with discernment. The Church approves of the use of this method for the purpose of understanding the historical and literary foundations of the text (see Vatican II, Dei Verbum 11-13), but finds it an incomplete method apart from the Tradition. Scripture must be interpreted according to the analogy of faith, that is, in accordance with what God has revealed in toto, as taught by the Magisterium.

This is not the complete article. It goes on to talk about the issue of inclusive language in a very long section, but if you’re interested in that, just use the link provided at the beginning of the post.

 

[Rolltide]

1. The problem with Protestant Bibles, besides leaving books out, is that they may translate certain passages differently. For example, many translations of John 1:28 say “Hail, O highly favored one” during the Annunciation instead of “Hail, full of grace”. It seems like a small matter, but “full of grace” implies the Immaculate Conception in a way that “O highly favored one” does not. Catholics use it as a scriptural reference to this doctrine, and therefore, preciseness is very important. There are a number of other passages where this comes into play, so this can be a critical, if often unnoticed, difference.

 

[bkovacs]

If you ask Fr John Eckhert on the EWTN Scripture forum. He will give you a good answer. And I can tell you from past posts that he also doesn’t care for the NAB translation. Even if it has approval.

 

[Scottgun]

When you say a bible on cd, do you mean an audio cd in which the bible is read by a narrator, or a computer cd for looking at it on your pc?

If the latter, just look online for various searchable translations.

 

[mablka]

Thanks for answering. It is the New Testament of the King James Version narrated by James Earl Jones.

 

[srferdave]

The only problem is that the New Testament was already started and the Jews were no longer under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

I don’t mean to get off topic, but were the Jews ever guided by the Holy Spirit? I thought the Holy Spirit did not come to guide us until pentecost which is after the coming of Jesus?

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

To avoid a long theological dissertation, I will try to be as brief as possible, so as not to start a different thought on this thread. There is one God, where one is, all three persons are. Whether it was the Father leading the Israelites with a pillar of fire and a pillar of cloud, or inspiring the prophets throughout the Old Testament, the Holy Spirit was involved. He did a pretty good job, as the books of the prophets were fulfilled through Jesus Christ, the Son, the 2nd person of the Blessed Trinity. This inspiration ceased with the end of the Old testament when the curtain was torn in the Temple when Jesus died on the cross. It was now with the Church Jesus established, this is when the Jews determined their books of the Hebrew canon in about 90-95 AD. These were the books the Protestants chose to put in their version of the Old Testament, rather than those used for 1500 years of Catholic Christianity. I leave the rest to your conclusion.
Deacon Ed B

 

[lak611]

Thanks for answering. It is the New Testament of the King James Version narrated by James Earl Jones.

If you have the New Testament, you will not be missing any books. Catholics and Protestants use the same New Testament.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

LAK 611 - What you say is correct. However, some versions of the Protestant bible in the Letter of Paul to the Romans, under the section on Justification, the word “alone” is added. to read "Justification by faith alone". I say some versions, as I have seen this in the ones I looked at. I readily admit I have not seen all of the King James Versions, nor do I have any. (I have my hands and mind full enough keeping up with the teachings of the Catholic Church which I believe and teach). This word "alone" is not in any Catholic New Testament that I am aware of, and I have at least eight different translations. One word, can give a total different meaning. This one has to do with the theology of SALVATION. Most important to everyone.
Deacon Ed B

 

[slyboots]

You know a lot of fundamentalists called this The Saint James Bible.
I take issue when I hear them saying it. I remind them that the James that ordered this Bible was not a saint, not even close. He liked boys. It’s historically accepted as fact. But some protestants try not to believe that.
From Way of Life Literature’s Fundamental Baptist Information Service. Copyright 2001.
"The accusation that King James I, who authorized the King James Bible, was a homosexual has often been made, but we need to be cautious about accepting it.
Actually, since he fathered eight children, he couldn’t have been much of a homosexual! He wrote love letters to his wife and obviously enjoyed her most intimate company. He referred to her as “our dearest bedfellow” (Gustavus Paine, The Men Behind the King James Version, p. 4). When John Rainolds questioned the phrase in the Anglican marriage service, “with my body I thee worship,” King James replied: “… if you had a good wife yourself, you would think that all the honor and worship you could do to her would be well bestowed” (Ibid.)…
While we do not believe that King James was a homosexual, we do not defend his character very far. He was a persecutor of Baptists and other separatists who refused to submit to the state church. In fact, the last two men burned alive in England for their faith were burned during the reign of James, and many others died in cruel prison cells for no crime other than following the Bible according to the dictates of their own conscience. It was because of the persecution poured out during James’ reign that the Puritans fled England and sailed for America in 1607 and the Pilgrims followed in 1620.
The bottom line is that the character of King James I has no relevance to the King James Bible itself. Though he set the project in motion and there is evidence that he maintained an interest in keeping it moving along, he had no role in the translation. He did not even finance the project

Doesn’t the guy sound like a saint to you?