KJV Protestant bible question

  • Thread starter Thread starter Reyesmrivera
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

Reyesmrivera

Guest
Is the “KJV” Protestant bible considered a heresy because it does not include all of the religious doctrine from the Catholic faith?

If so, should we as Catholics view the KJV as null or void?
 
Last edited:
I would say it is an incomplete Bible. Any commentary or footnotes May be protestant slanted. Other than that, It’s a fine Bible.
 
I have a KJV besides my bed. It it the main translation I use. Its a good translation because it translates the Hebrew and Greek, rather than trying to give you a sense of what is said. Other versions also do this, the RSV is an example in more modern language. But some (Jerusalem Bible, New American Bible) try to just give you the sense of what is said, and a lot of people feel they are not as good translations as a result. Incidentially, the KJV should just contain the text of scripture, and asides from an introduction from the translators there should be no footnotes or commentary.
 
When I came back to the Catholic faith, it was an abridged KJV version that brought be there. I was given a small hand-sized green covered New Testament with a second section in it reserved for the Book of Psalms. I read this little book every day for over a year. The bible had no footnotes, so, for clarity in the difficult passages, I went to the local university library to read from their vast collection of commentaries. Some of the commentaries I read were by Catholic authors, some by Protestant, and I even explored Orthodox perspectives - I didn’t really care at that point in my journey about the denominational backgrounds of those whom I read because I was just singularly taken by the notion of a loving God whose mercy and forgiveness was salvational. I couldn’t get enough of the conversation. I had to have more!

As an assist to my efforts, I started to attend a Catholic Bible study at a local Catholic church. This was the beginning of my formal return to the faith. I would not miss a single session. It became the heart and center of my week. I felt the truth being spoken and celebrated and lived with the people I met there - people who believed and loved God and His Church with all their hearts and who quickly became some of my dearest friends. I never looked back. And when I returned to attending the Mass, my life was changed unalterably.

The KJV is beautifully poetic with its late Elizabethan language. The phrasing is not only memorable, there is a sweetness of expression to be found in it that is unlike any other version I’ve ever known. When I compare it to other versions, I am still moved by the KJV sense of rightness. I know that the modern editions of the translation do not have our deuterocanonical books, but the very earliest version certainly does in their Apocrypha.

For my studies today, I use the RSV-CV as my mainstay and I do not like the NAB which I find to be particularly banal and lacking in a love for the beauty of the English language (I will admit that its plainspokeness can be refreshing on occasion). While I have moved away from using the KJV on a daily basis, I will always cherish it - and it is still my go-to volume for a contemplative reading of the Psalms in all their beauty.
 
Reyesmrivera said:
Is the “KJV” Protestant bible considered a heresy because it does not include all of the religious doctrine from the Catholic faith?

If so, should we as Catholics view the KJV as null or void?
Click to expand...
I am not sure what you mean by saying the KJV does not contain all of the doctrine of the Catholic faith. The KJV is a translation of the scriptures into Elizabethan English. And for its time, it was a pretty faithful translation. It isn’t an exposition of doctrine, nor is it meant to be.

That being said, you raise another question. Doctrine should flow from God’s revelation in scripture. If you are saying that your doctrine is not based on what scripture says, that’s an issue. Your question essentially becomes, should we avoid the Bible period because it doesn’t support our doctrine. If that’s the case, you have a major issue on your hands.
 
Last edited:
Reyesmrivera said:
Is the “KJV” Protestant bible considered a heresy because it does not include all of the religious doctrine from the Catholic faith?

If so, should we as Catholics view the KJV as null or void?
Click to expand...
The King James Version is not “missing” anything. It was translated to include all the books Catholics use, and then some.

The King James suffers from defective manuscripts, being 400 years old, but there is nothing in it against Catholic teaching. I have said before, and will say it again, that the King James can be given approval for private Catholic use (i.e. Nihil Obstat/Imprimatur) without changing a single word.
 
Gyro said:
When I came back to the Catholic faith, it was an abridged KJV version that brought be there. I was given a small hand-sized green covered New Testament with a second section in it reserved for the Book of Psalms.
Click to expand...
Thanks for your testimony. It is warming to hear. Welcome back.
 
Umm…not in copies that I have.

Perhaps a clarification needs to be made. Would you agree that the majority of KJVs on the market today do not contain those books?
 
KMC said:
Umm…not in copies that I have.

Perhaps a clarification needs to be made. Would you agree that the majority of KJVs on the market today do not contain those books?
Click to expand...
Yes.

That they are missing in your copies is a publisher issue, not a translation issue. No different from the NRSV, ESV, and even the RSV.

That does not take away from the fact that the King James Bible is complete, and all of our books are present in King James Bibles with Apocrypha.

Now if only a Bishop somewhere would simply approve a King James Version Catholic Edition…
 
porthos11 said:
40.png
KMC:
Umm…not in copies that I have.

Perhaps a clarification needs to be made. Would you agree that the majority of KJVs on the market today do not contain those books?
Click to expand...
Yes.

That they are missing in your copies is a publisher issue, not a translation issue. No different from the NRSV, ESV, and even the RSV.

That does not take away from the fact that the King James Bible is complete, and all of our books are present in King James Bibles with Apocrypha.

Now if only a Bishop somewhere would simply approve a King James Version Catholic Edition…
Click to expand...
Does the KJV version you refer to put the books into their proper order, or are they in an appendix? And are they labeled “Apocrypha”?
 
KMC said:
40.png
porthos11:
40.png
KMC:
Umm…not in copies that I have.

Perhaps a clarification needs to be made. Would you agree that the majority of KJVs on the market today do not contain those books?
Click to expand...
Yes.

That they are missing in your copies is a publisher issue, not a translation issue. No different from the NRSV, ESV, and even the RSV.

That does not take away from the fact that the King James Bible is complete, and all of our books are present in King James Bibles with Apocrypha.

Now if only a Bishop somewhere would simply approve a King James Version Catholic Edition…
Click to expand...
Does the KJV version you refer to put the books into their proper order, or are they in an appendix? And are they labeled “Apocrypha”?
Click to expand...
There is no “proper” order. Just “Vulgate” order. The order of books is not a matter of divine revelation.

They are labeled “Apocrypha”, not “Deuterocanonicals” and are typically “sandwiched” between the protocanonical Old Testament and the New Testament.

A hypothetical publisher can publish a hypothetical “Catholic Edition” by simply rearranging the books in the Vulgate order.
 
Therein lies some of the problems with getting a bishop to approve a KJV Catholic edition…especially anything that would dispute the inspiration of the Deuterocanon.

There are many people who read these threads that are not as knowledgeable as you on this topic, so if you say the “KJV is not missing anything,” that is misleading to a degree. AND, if they go and buy a KJV at the store and if it does have the Deuterocanon, it will be in an appendix labeled “Apocrypha,” which is also problematic. Most people don’t know the history of the canon, with Martin Luther under his own authority taking 7 books, putting them into the appendix of his translation, and also under his own authority declaring those books as “apocrypha.” And how later Protestant Bible Societies stopped printing KJV Bibles with that appendix sometime in the 1700-1800’s, under their own authority. So the implication that a KJV = RSV = NAB = (any other Catholic version of Scriptures), is misleading.

But that does bring up a question I have for you: I’m not an expert on all of the translation differences between KJV and RSV or NAB. Given your desire to see an “approved” Catholic KJV, even with the Deuterocanon, I would imagine you do have some reasons why you feel it is a better translation? I’m curious what those reasons would be.

thanks!
 
KMC said:
But that does bring up a question I have for you: I’m not an expert on all of the translation differences between KJV and RSV or NAB. Given your desire to see an “approved” Catholic KJV, even with the Deuterocanon, I would imagine you do have some reasons why you feel it is a better translation? I’m curious what those reasons would be.

thanks!
Click to expand...
Oh goodness no. The King James is inferior in many ways to modern translations and is not suitable for serious study or liturgical use. Its claim to fame is its beautiful English.

All I’m saying is that it is perfectly possible for some theoretical publisher to put together some theoretical KJV with the Apocrypha in traditional Vulgate order, approved by some theoretical Catholic bishop for theoretical private devotional use.

What I do object to is the claim that the King James is somehow “anti-catholic” or “heretical”. It is neither.
 
porthos11 said:
What I do object to is the claim that the King James is somehow “anti-catholic” or “heretical”. It is neither.
Click to expand...
My understanding has been this: what you find in the KJV (setting aside the inclusion or labeling of the Deuterocanon) is a translation that was a scholarly attempt to translate the Hebrew and Greek into English. That, in and of itself, is neither anti-Catholic or heretical.

What is heretical is the removal of the deuterocanon and its labeling as apocrypha. I think that is what people are thinking when you say “KJV”…they are think “which books” and “where did you put them” not about the actual translation of the remaining books.
 
KMC said:
40.png
porthos11:
What I do object to is the claim that the King James is somehow “anti-catholic” or “heretical”. It is neither.
Click to expand...
My understanding has been this: what you find in the KJV (setting aside the inclusion or labeling of the Deuterocanon) is a translation that was a scholarly attempt to translate the Hebrew and Greek into English. That, in and of itself, is neither anti-Catholic or heretical.

What is heretical is the removal of the deuterocanon and its labeling as apocrypha. I think that is what people are thinking when you say “KJV”…they are think “which books” and “where did you put them” not about the actual translation of the remaining books.
Click to expand...
Again, that is a publishing question, not a translation one, and I have said my piece.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top