J
Joe_Brown
Guest
Ok I found a free auidio Bible but its only the King James version. Is it worth it to listen to it or is it that bad of a translation. I know its a protestant verision but would it be ok?
- Status
H
Huiou_Theou
Guest
Without going through your back posts, I can’t really judge this for you.
Why are you interested in listening to it?
Is it because you can not find another free audio bible that is Catholic Approved?
How is your understanding of the catechism?
Do you know your faith well?
The banned book list is no longer published and distributed – eg de-facto, not enforced – but what is most important here is that the KJV does have quite a few errors in it; Eg: many of the translation lines are by amature translators…
I use it, but mostly because I study multiple versions and the Catechism – but every once in a while I will remember a verse from the KJV and have to correct it; Are you willing to check what you hear against what the church teaches?
That is basically what it boils down to – if you are prone to making snap judgments on the meaning of ambiguous sentences; or you have a memory that remembers what you hear and find it difficult to “un-remember” things which you learn are a “little” wrong/misleading – perhaps it isn’t for you. In that case, talk with your priest – if he is open – and ask him for a recommedation; Sometimes priests out here supply free CD-roms with audio of all kinds of things; If they know there is a desire to hear the scriptures – they may provide them. Perhaps your priest needs to know his flocks desires – no guarantees, but it’s his fault then.
Other than that – the KJV isn’t THAT bad a translation OVER-ALL, it just isn’t really clear in places where Catholics and Protestants disagree. Just be prepared to make a mistake like saying “Thamar” where that isn’t the woman’s name…
I’ve done it once…
Why are you interested in listening to it?
Is it because you can not find another free audio bible that is Catholic Approved?
How is your understanding of the catechism?
Do you know your faith well?
The banned book list is no longer published and distributed – eg de-facto, not enforced – but what is most important here is that the KJV does have quite a few errors in it; Eg: many of the translation lines are by amature translators…
I use it, but mostly because I study multiple versions and the Catechism – but every once in a while I will remember a verse from the KJV and have to correct it; Are you willing to check what you hear against what the church teaches?
That is basically what it boils down to – if you are prone to making snap judgments on the meaning of ambiguous sentences; or you have a memory that remembers what you hear and find it difficult to “un-remember” things which you learn are a “little” wrong/misleading – perhaps it isn’t for you. In that case, talk with your priest – if he is open – and ask him for a recommedation; Sometimes priests out here supply free CD-roms with audio of all kinds of things; If they know there is a desire to hear the scriptures – they may provide them. Perhaps your priest needs to know his flocks desires – no guarantees, but it’s his fault then.
Other than that – the KJV isn’t THAT bad a translation OVER-ALL, it just isn’t really clear in places where Catholics and Protestants disagree. Just be prepared to make a mistake like saying “Thamar” where that isn’t the woman’s name…
I’ve done it once…
T
Texas_Roofer
Guest
I to have a KJV because it was the only one I found to purchase at a reasonable price and even then it was expensive. On this form we typically use the a KJV for Bible searching then after finding the matching section in the bible we flip over to that same section on the USCCB website. My experience is the bibles match at least 90% of the time probably higher and since catholics are not sola scriptura we typically are not quoting bible nor parsing words or phrases. So yes listen to the KJV and later read the 7 deuterocanonical books from the Catholic bible which will be absent in the KJV: ( Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, (Sirach also called Ben Sira or Ecclesiasticus), Baruch)
Also note some difference listed on wikipedia:
Additions to Esther (Vulgate Esther 10:4-16:24[7])
Additions to Daniel:
Song of the Three Children (Vulgate Daniel 3:24-90)
Story of Susanna (Vulgate Daniel 13, Septuagint prologue)
The Idol Bel and the Dragon (Vulgate Daniel 14, Septuagint epilogue)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deuterocanonical_books
M
Mark77
Guest
Here’s a great way to compare the text; It has a number of translations
searchgodsword.org/.
Also here is the Latin Vulgate side by side with the KJV;
latinvulgate.com/
Good Luck.
Sancta Maria, Mater Dei, Ora Pro Nobis Peccatoribus!
mark
searchgodsword.org/.
Also here is the Latin Vulgate side by side with the KJV;
latinvulgate.com/
Good Luck.
Sancta Maria, Mater Dei, Ora Pro Nobis Peccatoribus!
mark
C
crazzeto
Guest
It can’t be all that bad, a catholic listening to KJV… I would think the biggest question would be whether or not they include the full bible or if they ditch the Septuigit. In fact, I have heard it suggested by Father Mitch on EWTN’s Open Line that KJV is very much based in Douay-Rheims.
C
Catholic_Johnny
Guest
When the KJV was being translated between 1607 and 1611, Anglo Catholicism (now called Episcopalianism) was still not far removed from the Catholic Church. The English in the KJV is superior in every way to Catholic English translations. The real tragedy for English speaking people is that Catholic translators have tried so hard to create contrast between the Catholic Church and Protestant translations that they have been willing to sacrifice “the queen’s English” just to take polemical jousts at the Protestants. The majesty, equivalence and faithfulness of the KJV to real English culture and the source documents for the translation (ie, the Vulgate) far surpass the weaker and decisively less poetic Catholic translations and end up alienating Catholic Christians from Bible study.
Catholics can read the KJV with faith and devotion to Jesus, Mary and the Eucharist. St. Jerome: “Ignorance of the Scriptures is ignorance of Christ.”
Catholics can read the KJV with faith and devotion to Jesus, Mary and the Eucharist. St. Jerome: “Ignorance of the Scriptures is ignorance of Christ.”
O
Oldtimer_7
Guest
I am a Lutheran who just joined and am enjoying poking around and seeing what is on this site. In my congregation, we use the New Revised Standard Version and I am no stranger to the KJV-onlyists among Protestants. In its original version, the KJV contained the Deuterocanonicals. They were only removed around 1830 when an English missionary society refused to ship Bibles if the Deuterocanonicals were included. The KJV-onlyists make a big issue of the version’s surety of translation, but what is not included in the modern versions I have seen is the footnotes in the 1611 editions. The original text had over 5,000 references to textual variations. Naturally, this is not a factor in an audio book.
Culturally, much of English literature that is makes reference to Biblical passages refers to the KJV. I suppose that the English Catholic writers might be an exception, but it is a matter I have not researched. For someone who has an interest in English literature, then, a knowledge of the KJV is helpful.
The KJV was based largely on William Tyndale’s translation of Erasmus’ Textus Receptus, third edition. Tyndale was a Lutheran and was executed by the English king for that reason. When I argue with a KJV-onlyist, I always thank them for using a Lutheran document. We consider Tyndale a martyr.
For a Catholic, I would recommend referencing the last six verses of Revelation. Erasmus’ Greek texts were missing those verses, so he took the verses from the Vulgate, translated the Latin into Greek, and then included it in the Textus Receptus. I guess then Catholics could claim to have the last word on the KJV.
Culturally, much of English literature that is makes reference to Biblical passages refers to the KJV. I suppose that the English Catholic writers might be an exception, but it is a matter I have not researched. For someone who has an interest in English literature, then, a knowledge of the KJV is helpful.
The KJV was based largely on William Tyndale’s translation of Erasmus’ Textus Receptus, third edition. Tyndale was a Lutheran and was executed by the English king for that reason. When I argue with a KJV-onlyist, I always thank them for using a Lutheran document. We consider Tyndale a martyr.
For a Catholic, I would recommend referencing the last six verses of Revelation. Erasmus’ Greek texts were missing those verses, so he took the verses from the Vulgate, translated the Latin into Greek, and then included it in the Textus Receptus. I guess then Catholics could claim to have the last word on the KJV.
Q
quasimodo
Guest
Not true
except when its not … Opinions are like noses … everyone has one and this one is no better than another
uh? prove it
see: noses and opinions
Other than that … fine post
F
Fidelis
Guest
Good post generally, but I would quible with this part. Tyndale was not executed* for the plain fact that he was a Lutheran* – despite what many of us would like to believe about some of those in our various faith traditions, almost nobody was executed for the *mere fact *of their denomination and it is somewhat simplistic for us to state it that way. Tyndale, rather, was executed because he was politically and religiously subversive through the publication of of his very faulty Bible translation which also carried polemic footnotes insulting and libelous to the Crown and the established religion (Scripture scholars today find Tyndales versions horridly laughable now, which is why you see no one using even a revised version of it; it was that bad).
In a society in which order depended upon loyalty to the established order and in which the ignorant and illiterate were easily swayed to violence, this was a bigger deal then than in our own more educated and tolerant times. Also, unfortunately, religion isn’t as important to the mass of the population as it was then. If someone publishes a heretical version of the Bible today, it hardly elicits a yawn.
Joe - Sorry for the digression on the main topic of your thread – were you not able to find ANY free downloadable Catholic Bible versions on line?
J
Jim_Baur
Guest
" its original version, the KJV contained the Deuterocanonicals. They were only removed around 1830 when an English missionary society refused to ship Bibles if the Deuterocanonicals were included."
Where can I go to see this.
I need a reliable site, one that a KJV only person would trust.
THANKS
Where can I go to see this.
I need a reliable site, one that a KJV only person would trust.
THANKS
J
Jim_Baur
Guest
Just a sidebar: the King James Version is named after a secular king–blasphemy to some people.
More importantly, the KJV’s English is not spoken–I have never heard any person talk like that. It is not the language of the people. It is not in the vernacular of 2009, 1909 either.
More importantly, the KJV’s English is not spoken–I have never heard any person talk like that. It is not the language of the people. It is not in the vernacular of 2009, 1909 either.
G
GeorgeSword
Guest
Any book on the history of the KJV, even an encyclopedia. You can also still buy full versions of it with the original books.
J
Jim_Baur
Guest
GeorgeSword
Thanks!!!
Thanks!!!
D
Dan_Parker
Guest
I purchased a copy of the original KJV. It’s not that expensive. I contains the preface and all the deuteros. It’s worth having, IMO.
G
GeorgeSword
Guest
Yes, Oxford publishes very good complete editions. The Penguin Classics Paperback also includes notes and the deuteros, but I’ve heard the quality of binding is quite poor.
J
Joe_Brown
Guest
To tell you the truth I am trying to buy a better translation. I really dont like the KJV Thanks for the answers though!
D
Dan_Parker
Guest
Why limit yourself to just one bible version? I have dozens in my library at home.
C
Catholic_Johnny
Guest
KJV is a modern colloquial title. The real title is the Authorized Version. James commissioned an authorized version that the Church of England could use to standardize scripture proclamation. There were many competing English versions out there after the Reformation.
In 1611, people really did talk that way. Have you never read Shakespear?
I strongly recommend the New KJV for anyone who speaks English. Same translation without the thee’s and thou’s.
O
Oldtimer_7
Guest
Jim, there is a Bible Study program called E-Sword, developed by Rick Myers, an Evangelical Protestant. I have 40+ versions of the Bible in my version, including the KJV-1611, and it does contain the Deuterocanonicals. What I like about E-Sword is that it is in my price range, free, and most of the works on it are free, too. The translation in the KJV 1611 is so different from the NRSV we used in studying them one summer (yes, Luther did not like them, but he did say they were worthy of study), that my study group made me stop reading the KJV version when we did read-arounds.
I am glad to know that the Oxford Press puts out a complete copy of the KJV 1611. Most of the evangelicals who swear by the KJV actually use a 1769 revision or the 1850. The 1850 has Jesus words in red letters. After all, if it was good enough for St. Paul, it must be good for us.
I am glad to know that the Oxford Press puts out a complete copy of the KJV 1611. Most of the evangelicals who swear by the KJV actually use a 1769 revision or the 1850. The 1850 has Jesus words in red letters. After all, if it was good enough for St. Paul, it must be good for us.
G
GeorgeSword
Guest
Actually, if you do some research, you’ll find that Shakespeare didn’t write as people spoke then, either
- Status