King James Version

[DaveBj]

St Veronica:

Part 2

1. Exodus 20:4 The Ten Commandments are corrupted by the KJV. Graven thing (idol) becomes graven image (Catholic icons). They pretend to forbid all sacred images as did the iconoclast heretics of the eighth century.

Actually, the Hebrew (word-for-word, literal) says, “Not you-shall-make for-yourself idol or-any-of image that in-the-heavens…” The Septuagint goes along with that. “Graven” isn’t there at all.

Against the need for faith and good works in Christian life:

1. Heb 10:22 The KJV dares to add to the word of god “full assurance” to the word “faith,” to support the heresy of Martin Luther.

Nothing was added. Greek: “en pleroforia pisteos,” “in full assurance of faith.”

1. Rom 4:3 One of countless examples of replacing the word “justice” or “justification” clearly meaning good works, with “righteousness,” as if salvation were all and only God’s work regardless of our cooperation.

Changing the words wouldn’t make much difference, because Catholics and Protestants define the “justification” differently. A typical Protestant definition is that justification is a judicial pronouncement that a man is just/righteous before God. The Catholic definition, from the CCC, is, “the gracious action of God which frees us from sin and communicates ‘the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ’ (Rom. 3:22). Justification is not only the remission of sins, but also the sanctification and renewal of the interior man.” Until we’re speaking from the same page of the dictionary on this issue, there’s really no point discussing translations.

1. II Pet I: 10 The KJV and other heretic Bibles omit the words “by good works,” where the Holy Ghost tells us via the first pope that we must make sure our election (salvation) “by good works.”

“By good works” is not in the Greek. Where did that come from?

Beware devout souls who believe in Jesus Christ and want the pure Word of God! Woe to he who corrupts, adds to, distorts or forbids the holy word of god as we received it from the fathers of old! Modern Catholic and all Protestant bibles are seriously corrupt in many ways.

The only reliable Bibles are those based on the old Latin Vulgate, such as the Douay-Rheims bible, available from TAN publishers. Ask for a catalogue, and try a small booklet by Fr. Rumble, “Bible Quiz,” or the small paperback "Where We Got the Bible: Our Debt to the Catholic Church

I repeat: a translation based on a translation increases the chances of error and ambiguity. I mean nothing personal by this, but you sound very much like a KJV-only fundamentalist. Neither the KJV nor the D-R nor the Vulgate was handed down from heaven on a golden platter. They were all the result of hard work by highly educated and pious (in their own ways) experts. I think St. Jerome would be shocked to think of people translating the Bible into other languages from his Latin translation, rather than from the original languages.

DaveBj

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

DaveBj:

Fourth attempt to post this; I keep running into some kind of 30-second time limit.

Okay, we all know that the KJV had some problems:

1. It was ordered up by a Protestant English king whose Christian witness was, shall we say, suspect.
2. It was translated using relatively recent Greek and Hebrew texts, in spite of the fact that there were older (=closer to the source) texts on the European mainland.
3. The translators intentionally kept language from previous English translations, language that was already considered archaic in the early 17th century (although that language does give us insight into the uses of the singular and plural second person pronouns).
4. The 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th (NKJV) editions excluded the Deuterocanonical books (although they were included in the original 1611 KJV).
5. The KJV has been used for several centuries to beat up on Catholics.

Other than all that ( ), what are the objections that Catholics have to the KJV?

DaveBj

Objection (5) is no objection against the version - it’s an objection to the way some have used it.​

I don’t understand the US distate for it. It has flaws, but so does the Challoner - Douai-Reims.

Can you see Protestant scholars being allowed to use manuscripts which were to be found only in (say) Rome ? I can’t. More to the point, textual criticism barely existed in 1611, when the Authorised Version (the correct name ) was published. So the point about older manuscripts, though in itself true, is not a fatal objection. It would be an equally valid complaint against all Biblical scholarship of the time. ##

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

## Objection (5) is no objection against the version - it’s an objection to the way some have used it.

I don’t understand the US Catholic distate for it. It has flaws, but so does the Challoner - Douai-Reims.

Can you see Protestant scholars being allowed to use manuscripts which were to be found only in (say) Rome ? I can’t. More to the point, textual criticism barely existed in 1611, when the Authorised Version (the correct name ) was published. So the point about older manuscripts, though in itself true, is not a fatal objection. It would be an equally valid complaint against all Biblical scholarship of the time. ##

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

MrS:

Did you know that King James’ mom was a Catholic (Mary Queen of Scots) who was beheaded - probably for being a Catholic.

Raised by Elizabeth, he was Protestant.

His marriage was arrainged to Anne of Denmark - a Luthern

Anne converted to Catholicism

James commissioned 50 or so court “jesters” to give him a bible… I guess cuz Henry had one.

James spent his later years not with his wife,but with his lover… the Duke…I believe of Buckingham.

There is a cool audio tape on the history of the bible.

Can you imagine Clinton appointed Ted Kennedy and 49 cohorts to develope a SWV of the bible (slick willie)

MrShttp://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon10.gif

1. James VI & I never had anything to do with Elizabeth I in his childhood - he never even set foot in England until he succeeded to the English thone in 1603, having been born in 1566.
2. The 54 men - the names of 47 remain - who made the 1611 Bible, included some of the finest scholars in England - if they were “jesters”, then so were the translators at the seminaries of Reims and Douai who made the Catholic version which is the basis for the Challoner Bible .
3. The 1611 Bible was in the making for seven years, having been undertaken as a result of the Hampton Court Conference of 1604

The Hampton Court Conference is also worth a look.

1. As Anne of Denmark died in 1619, six years before her husband, it is not exactly surprising that he did not spend the last years of his life with her. It wasn’t possible.

I most sincerely hope that tape is not produced by someone whose zeal exceeds his knowledge of Elizabethan and Jacobean Anglicanism.

Some trivia: One of the makers the Reims-Douai Bible, had a brother, who was one of the makers of the 1611 AV Bible - AKA the KJV ##

 

[DaveBj]

Gottle of Geer:

Can you see Protestant scholars being allowed to use manuscripts which were to be found only in (say) Rome ? I can’t. More to the point, textual criticism barely existed in 1611, when the Authorised Version (the correct name ) was published. So the point about older manuscripts, though in itself true, is not a fatal objection. It would be an equally valid complaint against all Biblical scholarship of the time. ##

Some people call it the Authorized Version (AV), but that’s a misnomer; there never was an act of Parliament authorizing it.

DaveBj

 

[headman13]

DaveBj:

Some people call it the Authorized Version (AV), but that’s a misnomer; there never was an act of Parliament authorizing it.

DaveBj

The “Authorized Version” was “Authorized” by the King not the Parliament, he didn’t need an act of Parliament. He was after all the head of the Church of England AND the King. You will recall what an advocate he was in any case ofthe divine right of kings, a belief that later got his son King Charles I shortened signifigantly—a whole head.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

DaveBj:

Some people call it the Authorized Version (AV), but that’s a misnomer; there never was an act of Parliament authorizing it.

DaveBj

That’s true - none the less, that is what it’s called. ​

Here in the UK anyway (I don’t think I’ve ever heard anyone but people from the States call it the KJV - that’s a dead giveaway that some is from the States ) ##

 

[J_Chrysostomos]

Two things…

First, James Akin has a masterful refutation of Douay-Rheims Onlyism here: catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=4300

Also the 1611 King James Bible (with the Apocrypha/Deuterocanon) is available now from Hendrickson - 20 bucks at Amazon.
amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1565631609/002-7398753-0232055?v=glance

 

[Apologia100]

Hey, if the KJV was good enough for Jesus and St. Paul, its good enough for me!

 

[squirt]

## That’s true - none the less, that is what it’s called.

Here in the UK anyway (I don’t think I’ve ever heard anyone but people from the States call it the KJV - that’s a dead giveaway that some is from the States ) ##

Or Canada. The only “AV” that I’ve ever picked up and read has “King James Version” printed prominently on the spine … hence, I’ve always thought of it as the KJV …

The main reason I don’t like it is that the writing style puts me to sleep …

 

[Apologia100]

It putteth thou to thine heavenly slumber?

 

[Brendan]

I don’t know if all have seen this or not

It’s the Revised Fundamentalist Version

It’s a bit of a Catholic parody on the ‘dynamic equivalence’ changes in the NIV

 

[DaveBj]

J_Chrysostomos:

Also the 1611 King James Bible (with the Apocrypha/Deuterocanon) is available now from Hendrickson - 20 bucks at Amazon.
amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1565631609/002-7398753-0232055?v=glance

Cha-ching! Ordered and on its way!

DaveBj

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

squirt:

Or Canada. The only “AV” that I’ve ever picked up and read has “King James Version” printed prominently on the spine … hence, I’ve always thought of it as the KJV …

The main reason I don’t like it is that the writing style puts me to sleep …

I think a lot depends on what one is used to - which may have little to do with the merits or demerits of a translation.​

My main problem with the Challoner-D-R (the real D-R is a very different kettle of fish from what is usually called the D-R) is the excessive Latinity, most noticeably that in OT names - it looks so terribly odd. Other irritants are the differences of the Psalm numberings from the numberings in Bibles based on Hebrew, the oddness of “rational” for “ephod”, “Cocytus” for “hell” (= the place of the dead in OT thinking - not the place of eternal punishment of Christian theology), and the complete unintelligibility of much of the text. The Challoner-D-R is more consistent in using “angel” to translate Hebrew malakh for both human and superhuman messengers, but IMO, “messenger” would have been preferable - that, or use “angel” for the superhuman kind, and “messenger” for the human: all malakhim are “messengers” - but not all “messengers” are “angels”. The AV is not a good Bible for word study - it translates nouns too inconsistently. The makers of the Revised Version of 1881 noted this: the RV has been criticised for being too wooden - it’s impossible to win, when one is translating the Bible: everyone has an opinion, because it affects everyone .
The AV is often unintelligible, in many of the same places, but the dignity of the style often masks this. The Challoner-D-R is not written by such accomplished stylists.

I never had the slightest clue what St.Paul was driving at, until I heard him read in the New English Bible (which was published in 1970). That really was a revelation. ##

 

[squirt]

## I think a lot depends on what one is used to - which may have little to do with the merits or demerits of a translation.

My main problem with the Challoner-D-R (the real D-R is a very different kettle of fish from what is usually called the D-R) is the excessive Latinity, … ##

Yeah, my comments on the KJV were purely based on stylistic preferences … I wasn’t trying to knock it.

You aren’t going to get any argument from me on the C-D-R.

Heck, I usually read the Bible in French … although I’m getting a bit better at stumbling through the Latin version I have (that has two separate translations of the psalms).

When it comes to Greek, I can kind of sound out some of the words … us math types know the Greek alphabet … but we’re used to seeing all the letters separately, not combined into words … so it is pretty rare that I come across I word that I recognise … ‘logos’ being about the only exception.

As for Hebrew, I can’t even distinguish half of the different letters from each other …

 

[headman13]

squirt:

Yeah, my comments on the KJV were purely based on stylistic preferences … I wasn’t trying to knock it.

You aren’t going to get any argument from me on the C-D-R.

Heck, I usually read the Bible in French … although I’m getting a bit better at stumbling through the Latin version I have (that has two separate translations of the psalms).

When it comes to Greek, I can kind of sound out some of the words … us math types know the Greek alphabet … but we’re used to seeing all the letters separately, not combined into words … so it is pretty rare that I come across I word that I recognise … ‘logos’ being about the only exception.

As for Hebrew, I can’t even distinguish half of the different letters from each other …

Hi Squirt, I had to learn Hebrew and Greek for my doctoral studies. I had wonderful Hebrew professors and they really pounded it into our heads. There was a time it was as good as my Greek. “But if you don’t use it, you lose it.” My Greek is still passable, sadly my Hebrew is hardly functional at all. My degree is in Church History so Latin and my native German have actually proved more useful for me. But I do like trying to read the Hebrew signs when they appear on the news from Israel

 

[Psalm45_9]

I love the King James Bible because of the Elizabethan English, but I would not use it for studying the scripture. Protestants don’t realize that King James would not remove the apocrypha from the Bible because many Protestants still saw them as authentic history. I don’t get it. If the King did not see these books as un-healthy for Christians, then what right did other Protestants have to remove them from the King James Bible? Why is it that I can buy a King James Bible for only $5 but it costs anywhere from $35-$100 for a Douay-Rheims Bible?

 

[headman13]

Psalm45:9:

I love the King James Bible because of the Elizabethan English, but I would not use it for studying the scripture.

Indeed, the King James Bible is unsurpassed for lingusitic style and beauty. It is one of the great monuments of the English language and has influenced our language more than any other work, Shakespeare included. More people should be exposed to its sonorous phrases. But as you say, I do not and would not use it for Bible study. I had a parish once that insisted that ONLY the Authorized Version be used in worship. They didn’t understand it and I proved it to them over and over again. Yet they insisted. It was idolatry and I told them so . If God wants to speak to me he will speak to me in my own language, not an archaic foreign language, no matter how pretty. As I pointed out in another thread, in Islam, in order to read Allah’s word, you HAVE to read it in Arabic, translations do not count. Thank God, He Who comes to us in our own flesh and blood continues to speak to us in our own language as well. In my current parish, in 2 out of the 3 Bible studies we have, the dear old folks sit there and read dutifully through the KJV and don’t have a clue what it means 3 times out of 5. When we get to a really hard passage that they obviously haven’t gotten a clue about, Pastor Smartypants [me] refers to his NIV and says “Well now, let’s see what that means in ENGLISH, shall we?”

 

[Yaegel]

DaveBj:

I have the D-R on one of my CD-ROM libraries. My problem with it is that it is taken from the Latin Vulgate, not from the original Greek/Latin texts. Any time you translate from a translation, there’s an extra chance for error and ambiguity.

DaveBj

Isaiah 5.1 uses the word cousin as well as Luke 1.5. Luke 1.28 has the angel Gabriel proclaiming to Mary, “blessed art thou among women”. I think all three are mistakes.

 

[Jeffrey]

I use the KJV Of course, I was raised on and studied the KJV (Altho it was several years ago)

FWIW:

If you intend to do serious Bible study, a literal translation is what you want. This will enable you to catch more of the detailed implications of the text, but at the price of readability. You have to worry less about the translators’ views coloring the text, though even very literal translations are not free from this entirely.

A second question you will need to ask yourself is whether you want an old or a modern translation. Older versions, such as the King James and the Douay-Rheims, can sound more dignified, authoritative, and inspiring. But they are much harder to read and understand because English has changed in the almost four hundred years since they were done.

catholic.com/library/Bible_Translations_Guide.asp
Psalm45:9:

I love the King James Bible because of the Elizabethan English, but I would not use it for studying the scripture.