KJV (or: Why the orthodox are okay with it?)

[OriginalGabrielof12]

No,no these are semantics. What I am presenting Not only were words added to scripture but liturgical books were removed from the KJV and claimed a self infallibility to rename 7 Canonical books to be apocryphal.

This is why Catholics should not and do not use the KJV as a lectionary.

When it comes to private study. The Church does not oppose me for having one on my personal bookshelf for self study.

A King James Version of the bible should never be used in the Catholic Liturgy. For one, it lacks seven canonized books, so the KJV list of inspired books could never meet and follow the Liturgical calendar when Jesus and the apostles walked the earth.

How can a KJV bible be used in a Catholic liturgy when it self condemns seven inspired books of God, Jesus and the apostles quoted from.

Now when your talking semantics, translation many bibles take to task depending on the subject matter one is personally studying. But when it comes to the Liturgy. A KJV should always be rejected.

Peace be with you

 

[Jestersage]

Technically, the KJV is used in Lectionary: for Anglican Use. And as I mentioned, the Eastern Catholics (and even Orthodox) does use KJV for the English liturgrial work.

There are indeed problems regarding KJV

• Calling the Deutocanonical Bible “Apocrypha”. It’s the meaning, but for a secondary bible it is not something to be bothered.
• Putting it in its own section, therefore creating discontinuity in terms of reading the other passage. It’s not just “7 books”. it also pulled out the sections that is not in the Hebrew bible.
• “thou that art highly favoured”. Would be a problem if not NRSVCE (used in Canada), Jereselum Bible (UK) and NABRE use the same term too, so ironically this is no longer a good point to compare.

However, KJV does contain the Eastern’s aprocrypha, and for personal use those are relatively minor.

So aside from some translation where NT should refer to OT but didn’t in the translation (eg: Matthew 21:16, ref Psalm 8:2), are there other issue?

As TWF7 said, do not misrepresent stuff. We are not here to argue.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

How can a KJV bible be used in a Catholic liturgy when it self condemns seven inspired books of God, Jesus and the apostles quoted from.

Why the hand wringing? No Catholic Bishop’s Conference in any English speaking countries permits the KJV for use in Liturgy. (Nor does it permit the D/R version either.)

 

[ajcstr]

I might be wrong, but isn’t the NKJV what the Orthodox study Bible uses? So, I’d imagine, if that’s the cast, that at least some Orthodox use that.

yes - but only the NT is the NKJV.

 

[ajcstr]

Its not just semantics. You alleged some things about the KJV that simply aren’t true. Firstly, Martin Luther didn’t have anything to do with the KJV. The KJV was, as the name suggests, commissioned by King James. It is an Anglican translation, not a Lutheran translation. Secondly, the KJV doesn’t add the word “alone”. Thirdly, the KJV includes all 7 of the deuterocanonical books in the appendix. I think you’re conflating the KJV and later Protestant translations.

You are correct with everything you said about the KJV except for your third point. It was the original KJV that contained the deuterocanonical books - you would be hard pressed to find one today that included them, even in a separate section as they were removed at a later time - in the 1800’s I believe.

The biggest problem with the KJV and the DR are not translation related, its more of an issue that the English used in the 1600’s is in some cases very different from the English used today. Other than that, its a very reliable translation.

 

[ajcstr]

I disagree with your assumption. Martin Luther added to God’s Word, his own word “alone” to Romans 3:28

The KJV never included the word “alone” in Romans 3:28. You are confusing this with Martin Luther’s German translation.

 

[ajcstr]

If you consider the KJV cursed, you must feel the same way about the RSV-CE, which is in exact agreement with the KJV

I don’t believe this is true, The RSV-CE does not use the Textus Receptus as its underlying Greek base as the KJV/NKJV do so there are translation differences.

One that is frequently brought up is John 3:36

KJV - He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

RSV - He who believes in the Son has eternal life; he who does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God rests upon him.

Note the difference between believe and obey.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

I don’t believe this is true, The RSV-CE does not use the Textus Receptus as its underlying Greek base as the KJV/NKJV do so there are translation differences.

One that is frequently brought up is John 3:36

KJV - He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

RSV - He who believes in the Son has eternal life; he who does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God rests upon him.

Note the difference between believe and obey.

Right. There will be differences of course, because the RSV takes advantage of new scholarship (such as the Dead Sea Scrolls etc.) In your example the difference is slight, and here the KJV agrees exactly with the D/R! In fact, what I have often found, is that when the KJV disagrees with the RSV it agrees instead with the D/R! But that’s not surprising since both the D/R and KJV do not benefit from modern scholarship.

What I mean is that for all intents and purposes, the KJV agrees completely with the RSV, (except where modern scholarship and revisions have updated the text of the underlying KJV text.)

Remember, the RSV is NOT a NEW TRANSLATION from all new sources, it is an update to the Standard Authorized Version, which was an update to the KJV. IOW, where the underlying text needed correcting based on the latest scholarship, it was revised.

 

[adamhovey1988]

I wasn’t sure, but I know there are a few book stores where I can get an Orthodox Study Bible and I remember it saying NKJV on it. I appreciate you clearing that up for me.

 

[ajcstr]

I wasn’t sure, but I know there are a few book stores where I can get an Orthodox Study Bible and I remember it saying NKJV on it. I appreciate you clearing that up for me.

I believe the OT translation that Bible uses is a translation of the Greek Septuagint unlike most bibles that translate the OT from Hebrew manuscripts.

 

[Saxum]

Quite frankly, I am of the belief that the King James Version can be approved for Catholic devotional use without changing a single word.

I agree. The KJV is a beautiful translation and it has hugely influenced the English language. It’s one of my favourite translations. I like it better than our Douay Rheims version.