Kjv

  • Thread starter Thread starter Montie_Claunch
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Montie_Claunch

Guest
Alright, I was just wondering, As most of ya’ll know I am converting to Catholicism. I was wondering though if I could hold on to my KJV bible, you know It was what I grew up spiritually with and has sentamental value and stuff. I have Catholic bible with the deutrocannonical (Sp?) books and I was just going to flip to it when I got to where they would be (and overtly arn’t in the KJV)? I am just curious and I thought I would ask. So thanks and God bless.
 
Of course, you should keep it! As you said, it has sentimental value, and, strictly in terms of the development of the English language, it is quite beautiful. They teach English courses out of passages of that book. I have my great-grandfather’s KJV (it has snuff stains in it from when he would dip and read!). Hang on to it.
 
Yes, you are allowed to hold on to your KJV, the Church doesn’t ask you to get rid of it or anything. It’s just that, as you know, that version doesn’t have all the Books of the Bible in it. The Bible’s that are approved by the Catholic Church are the following:
Douay Rheims
RSV (Revised Standard Version)
Navarre
Ignatius
Jerusalem and
NAB (New American Bible). Since you already have one of these, you’re good to go. 👍
 
Get yourself a replica 1611 KJV, and you’ll have one with the deuterocanonicals. $25-ish from Barnes and Noble or Amazon.

DaveBj
 
Interestingly, the original 1611 KJV included all of the deuterocanonical books in it. They were later removed for obvious protestant political reasons. Today’s KJV is the “stripped down” version of the 1611, commonly known as the 1769 Bakerville Birmingham edition. As you know, it does not contain the seven OT books from the Septuagint.

I would keep the book, however, I would read the following before ever using it for study of the Sacred Scriptures.

bible-researcher.com/kjvdefects.html
scripturecatholic.com/septuagint.html
skypoint.com/~waltzmn/TR.html
 
I have a KJV that was presented to me by my Sunday school class (lutheran) in 1956 and is inscribed with my name and the date.
I’m definetly keeping it.
Further, I also have a NWT (jw).
The KJV is poetically beautiful (especially Psalms) and both the KJV and the NWT are useful for understanding how non-Catholics understand certain verses and passages.
Without them, I would have a more difficult time in presenting the Catholic position to others.
They are of no use to me, as a Catholic, for study but are invaluable for researching another’s point of view.
 
I still have several KJVs… one was my grandfather’s. The Psalms are so beautiful - the 23rd in KJV is still my favorite!

Kage
 
40.png
DaveBj:
Get yourself a replica 1611 KJV, and you’ll have one with the deuterocanonicals.
Click to expand...
I have one of those. It’s crazy because you see how they used to write just a few hundred years ago. Like, the word “stars” would look more like “ftarres.” It’s crazy and a challenge to read, but I really love it. 🙂
 
Hey Montie,
As a former fundamentalist I have mixed feelings about the KJV. The language of the Book is wonderful, but oftentimes hard to understand. In our old church it was used as kind of an exclusionary element of fundamentalism that would sometimes make would-be church goers shy away. If you haven’t grown up with the KJV, you’d likely not feel so attached to it. There is a great website for a Bible I’d recommend to you. www.kj21.com, you can get what’s called the Third Millenium Bible that has the dc books. This will keep you in a version that’s poetic, readable and authentic. It’s a great Bible! Stay in the Word and read those extra Books…they support the Catholic doctrine. God Bless!!!
 
The language of the KJV is extremely beautiful. But for many it is archaic and difficult to understand. From my reading the language used sounded old fashioned even when the translation was first published.

Many words have changed meanings since the translation came out. For example the word, “prevent” then meant to help along or assist, while now it means the opposite.

But, there is no reason not to keep it.
 
I took my old KJV to my 6th Grade CCD class – showed 'em how beat up it was (the morocco leather cover had to be taped over because it was falling off. I told them how I used to READ it when I was even younger than they are and that nobody thought that was in any way extraordinary or precocious.

That Bible was given to me for Christmas, and inscribed by my parents, the year I was 8. I slept with it for years. I made my little kiddie and adolescent notes in the margin (waaayyy embarrassing!) all the way through college and after. When I was 10, I used to run fire-escape scenarios in my head: First grab that Bible, then the Teddy bear and THEN leave the building!
That Book is a big part of my life! No way would I ever part with it. (And yes, I still have the Teddy bear.)
 
If you love the aesthetics of the KJV, then get yourself a Douay-Rheims from baroniuspress.com. The KJV copied a lot from the earlier Douay-Rheims Version. The Bible carried at Baronius has an imprimatur and nihil obstat, so you know it’s in line with Catholic doctrine. Also comes with tons of commentaries from the great Archbishop William Challoner.
 
Semper Fi:
If you love the aesthetics of the KJV, then get yourself a Douay-Rheims from baroniuspress.com. The KJV copied a lot from the earlier Douay-Rheims Version. The Bible carried at Baronius has an imprimatur and nihil obstat, so you know it’s in line with Catholic doctrine. Also comes with tons of commentaries from the great Archbishop William Challoner.
Click to expand...
Semper Fi:

The ORIGINAL DOUAY-RHEIMS used a LOT of anglicised Latin words that probably weren’t accessible to ordinary Englishmen and women. Bishop Dr. Richard Challoner (1691-1781) may have actually borrowed from the KJV when he revised the Douay-Rheims, eliminating those Anglicised Latin words in the Challoner Revision (1749-1752) of the Doury Rheims.
drbo.org/preface.htm

By the time the KJV was translated, there were at least 20 major translations into English which were then floating around. We do know that it borrowed heavily from all of these, so it could have borrowed some from the Douay=Rheims.

The most popular translation at the time of the KJV was something called the Geneva Bible. That’s the one the Pilgrims and the Mass. Bay Colony both used. It tended toward an individualistic interpretation of the Biblical texts, while the KJV translators were more interested in community and nation-building.

The KJV became popular as people became interested in community and nation-building, which explains the KJV’s popularity in the USA AFTER the Revolutionary War and in England AFTER their Monarchy had been reconstituted AFTER the surrender of the Puritan Dictactors in the late 17th Century.

I hope this makes things a little clearer.

In Christ, Michael
 
Jesus spoke the language the way the KJV was written. Our Father who art in heaven,hallow be THY name,THY kingdom come. Its all the THE,s And the THOU 😃 s.God Bless
 
Jesus spoke the language the way the KJV was written. Our Father who art in heaven,hallow be THY name,THY kingdom come. Its all the THE,s And the THOU 😃 s.God Bless
Click to expand...
Erm, Spokes…Jesus spoke Aramaic…Aramaic sounds nothing like English…

-ACEGC
 
40.png
SPOKENWORD:
Jesus spoke the language the way the KJV was written. Our Father who art in heaven,hallow be THY name,THY kingdom come. Its all the THE,s And the THOU 😃 s.God Bless
Click to expand...
Good one, SPOKES! :bounce: 👍
 
Traditional Ang:
Semper Fi:

The ORIGINAL DOUAY-RHEIMS used a LOT of anglicised Latin words that probably weren’t accessible to ordinary Englishmen and women. Bishop Dr. Richard Challoner (1691-1781) may have actually borrowed from the KJV when he revised the Douay-Rheims, eliminating those Anglicised Latin words in the Challoner Revision (1749-1752) of the Doury Rheims.
drbo.org/preface.htm
Click to expand...
Challoner copied from the KJV and the KJV copied from the original Douay 😉
 
40.png
SPOKENWORD:
Jesus spoke the language the way the KJV was written. Our Father who art in heaven,hallow be THY name,THY kingdom come. Its all the THE,s And the THOU 😃 s.God Bless
Click to expand...
I realize that you are joking but I know people that really believe that people in Jesus’s time spoke like they do in the KJV.

I would hold onto your KJV. It has sentimental value, has beautiful wording and is useful for debating the fundamentalists who only use KJV.

I come from a fundamentalist background and I can say though that the KJV was a serious stumbling block for me. I couldn’t read the bible without getting out reference material. When I complained at church I was told to simply ask for the Holy Spirit’s guidance. Arrrgghh:banghead: …it used to drive me batty.
 
I’d echo everyone who says to keep it. It’s not the best for exegetical study, but it’s certainly lovely. It’s a translation of the inspired Word of God that contains no heretical errors (to the best of my knowledge), so there is no reason not to keep it around.

I mean, even if it were outright heretical, there’s no Church law against having it on your bookshelf. I have copies of the Book of Mormon, the Koran, and books on Greco-Roman mythology. I’d like to own a Jehovah’s Witnesses “Bible,” so I can understand where they get some of their teachings. I can appreciate what’s interesting about them as literature, while still recognizing what’s wrong about them as theology. If the Church doesn’t make me get rid of these books, they certainly won’t make you get rid of the KJV Bible.
 
40.png
SPOKENWORD:
Jesus spoke the language the way the KJV was written. Our Father who art in heaven,hallow be THY name,THY kingdom come. Its all the THE,s And the THOU 😃 s.God Bless
Click to expand...
This is actually almost a valid argument, even though Jesus didn’t speak English. Most ancient languages, like many modern languages, have both formal and informal words for “you.” (Many people, incidentally, don’t know that “thee” and “thou” were actually informal.) “King James English” shares this trait, and modern English doesn’t. Of course, to use this to imply that the KJV gives an exact sense of ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, or even that it gives a more exact sense of those languages than modern translations, is bunk. The languages and the cultures surrounding the languages are much better understood by today’s translators, and that results in more precise translation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top