KJV Protestant bible question

  • Thread starter Thread starter Reyesmrivera
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Hodos said:
Doctrine should flow from God’s revelation in scripture.
Click to expand...
Slight correction. Rather, the bible is a product of revelation to mankind - first the pre-Judaic, then to Abraham, Moses and the OT writers. After that, to the Apostles. In any human language, God cannot be expressed perfectly - that is why it needs the interpretive guidance of the Apostolic Tradition and that is why He founded a Church.

Now, back to the KJV. It has 91% of scripture in it. What it is missing is some of the most profound scripture ever recorded on pre-Christian scrolls - including perhaps the most detailed prophecy of the life and death of Christ - written as few as 50 years before the Incarnation.

As much as the KJV is praised for its florid and artful Old Testament, I find the New Testament to be stilted and clumsy in parts. It is really the 16th century German “canon” rendered in English, so it is not a uniquely English bible as regards content. That was seemingly dictated by the chief reformer.

And who is this “Most high and mighty Prince James” whose “word” authorized its publication? Almost sounds like a pope. Even worse than that…
 
Last edited:
po18guy said:
Slight correction. Rather, the bible is a product of revelation to the Apostles and the Church. It is a result , a resource and not a source .
Click to expand...
The source is God, which I stated explicitly when I said that it was God’s revelation. Scripture is the artifact of that revelation faithfully handed down. As such it provides the norm for our declaration of doctrine.
 
Last edited:
The original human authors of scripture were inspired by the Holy Spirit in what they wrote, But no translator is inspired in the same way.
 
porthos11 said:
A hypothetical publisher can publish a hypothetical “Catholic Edition” by simply rearranging the books in the Vulgate order.
Click to expand...
And if there is a chance to get it Catholic “approved” then why not? What publisher doesn’t understand $$$?
 
po18guy said:
Slight correction. Rather, the bible is a product of revelation to the Apostles and the Church. It is a result , a resource and not a source .
Click to expand...
Saying God’s word is a resource and not a source puts you on a whole other level than anyone else and even that thinking would explain so many things in history as you are obviously not the first to invent that.
 
po18guy said:
And who is this “Most high and mighty Prince James” whose “word” authorized its publication? Almost sounds like a pope. Even worse than that…
Click to expand...
Actually James was a King of the English speaking country in the world (some may argue the UK is still the only country speaking actual English but I guess that’s another thread) at the time. Unless you can provide that he personally “checked and approved the translation” the simple google search will show it was done by linguists. Yes it has it’s flaws and also this isn’t a King James only discussion. So that shouldn’t be a stumble block. Basically you accuse him of the same crime of any “new” translation. But maybe I am mistaken and you also think that. So you tell me?
 
Last edited:
It is 1/3 the deposit of faith - but only because the Church tested hundreds of writings and culled the poseurs. I would temper my remark now, as I made it in response to the incessant intrusion of bible alone types.

Yeah yeah yeah, I know.
 
I have a similar issue: my folks had a large Bible enthroned (it’s surrounded by candles and statues) when I was very young, and it became the family Bible, but no one reads it (some use their own Bibles, which are smaller).

I opened it and discovered that it’s the KJV with the deuterocanonical books not included. Instead, there are essays inserted explaining why the Catholic Church included them, and why it was wrong of it to do so:


They’re not keen on putting it in a bookshelf and using a Catholic Bible instead because it has sentimental values.
 
po18guy said:
It is 1/3 the deposit of faith - but only because the Church tested hundreds of writings and culled the poseurs. I would temper my remark now, as I made it in response to the incessant intrusion of bible alone types.

Yeah yeah yeah, I know.
Click to expand...
I had a feeling it was rather an emotional response to anything that may seem “Bible alone”. I accept your response and the fact that in the Catholic Church the Word of God is considered part of the 3 legged stool.
 
Last edited:
I don’t think there’s a problem necessarily with reading it (and the original 1611 Edition actually did have the deuterocanonical books). I think there may be some problems with translation bias, but that’s any Bible.
 
Good! Keep seeking, as our Lord did not found His Church on any writing at all.

Glad we have it and you oughta’ see my bible collection, but it is not everything and never was intended to be. We strive to follow the teachings of Christ and His apostles, part of which was written down.
 
Fully agree on all you posted! Glad we have no misunderstandings.

Blessings!
 
Last edited:
If you like the language in the KJV, I would recommend using the Douay-Rheims instead. It is a Catholic Bible from the same era, same type of language but an English translation of the Latin Vulgate, which was translated by St Jerome (what more do you want).
 
Last edited:
My perennial favorite is the Douay-Confraternity bible, published from 1941-1969. It has the simply excellent 1941 Confraternity New Testament and began with a pure Douay Old Testament, with newer OT translations added slowly over the years. Sadly, it was never printed in completed form, But any of the editions are fine as they are.
 
My oldest little sister actually got me one for Christmas, and I got my niece one for Christmas a few years ago. It is a really good version if you do like that style of English.
 
@po18guy @adamhovey1988

I have two versions, a 1914 Challoner bible approved by Cardinal Bourne of Westminster and a
1955 Challoner/Haydock/Ganss, New Testament approved by Cardinal Spellman.

I recused the 1914 one from the incinerator of an old seminary and picked up the 1955 for €5 in a second-hand shop.
 
If the KJV Bible(revised) was published after 1885(ish), it will contain less books than the 1611 edition. The KJV did not exist before 1611.
 
po18guy said:
Now, back to the KJV. It has 91% of scripture in it. What it is missing is some of the most profound scripture ever recorded on pre-Christian scrolls - including perhaps the most detailed prophecy of the life and death of Christ - written as few as 50 years before the Incarnation.
Click to expand...
Which books include these scriptures?

Other then the 7 books, Tobit, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Wisdom, Sirach, and Baruch… that are in the Catholic bible, what other books are missing from the KJV?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top